Punjab-Haryana High Court
Hardeep Singh vs State Of Haryana on 16 November, 2011
Author: Rakesh Kumar Jain
Bench: Rakesh Kumar Jain
CRR-2332-2011 [1]
::::::::
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRR-2332-2011
Date of decision:16.11.2011
Hardeep Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN
Present: Mr. Jagjit Gill, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. Sagar Deswal, AAG, Haryana.
*****
RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J.
This revision petition is directed against the order dated 11.08.2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Sirsa by which an application filed by the petitioner to declare him to be a juvenile, has been dismissed.
In short, one Rajinder Singh son of Kartar Singh, resident of village Dadu, registered FIR No.34 dated 09.03.2011, under Sections 323, 324, 307, 285, 506, 34 of IPC and 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 at Police Station Kalanwali, alleging therein that on 08.03.2011, the petitioner alongwith other co-accused caused injuries to the complainant, Harmel Singh and Gurpreet Singh. The petitioner was arrested and was granted regular bail.
The petitioner moved an application on 01.06.2011 to declare him to be a juvenile on the basis of Secondary School Examination Certificate (Ex.A1/Annexure P-2) and Middle School Examination Certificate (Annexure P-3) in which the date of birth of the petitioner is recorded as 04.04.1993 and since the occurrence took place on 08.03.201, therefore, the petitioner was allegedly less than 18 years of CRR-2332-2011 [2] ::::::::
age at that time.
The application was opposed by the prosecution on the strength of birth certificate (Ex.RX/Annexure P-4).
The petitioner had examined his mother Gurpreet Kaur as AW1, whereas the prosecution had examined Tirlok Singh of village Hirawala as RW1 and Jagraj of village Dadu as RW2.
Although the learned Court below had observed that both RW1 and RW2 have not been summoned by the Court nor they are any office bearers of the department from where Ex.RX has been issued or Chowkidar of the village, yet the Court had relied upon Ex.RX in preference to the document Ex.A1 on the ground that Ex.A1 has not been proved in accordance with law.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the learned Court below has committed a patent error in exercise of its jurisdiction in relying upon document Ex.RX instead of document Ex.A1. In this regard, he has referred to the provisions of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2007 [for short "the Act"] to contend that in the matter of determining the age of a person to be declared a juvenile, the Court shall have to place reliance upon the matriculation or equivalent certificates in the first instance and in the absence thereof, date of birth certificate from the school (other than a play school) first attended in the second instance and in the absence thereof, the birth certificate given by a corporation or a municipal authority or a panchayat. He has further submitted that the birth certificate issued by a corporation or the municipal authority is the last choice which has been considered by the learned Court below over and above the first and second choice as provided by the law. It is also submitted that even the birth certificate (Ex.RX) is not reliable because in the said certificate, name of the petitioner has been mentioned as Kamaljit Singh instead of Hardeep Singh; name of his mother has been mentioned as Baljit Kaur instead of Gurpreet Kaur and his address has been given of village Dadu, Tehsil Bhiwani, District Hisar, whereas the petitioner is the resident of village Dadu, Tehsil Kalanwali, District Sirsa. He further submitted that the learned Court below has erred in relying upon the statements of RW1 and RW2 without looking into the fact as to on what basis Hardeep singh is also called as Kamaljit Singh and his mother Gurpreet Kaur as Baljit Kaur.
CRR-2332-2011 [3]
::::::::
On the other hand, learned State Counsel has submitted that the learned Court below has committed no error in dismissing the application because the entry in the School Leaving Certificate has to commensurate with the entry in the birth certificate and in the absence of the birth certificate, preference cannot be given to the matriculation or equivalent certificate as submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner. He has also submitted that when RW1 and RW2 were cross-examined, no suggestion was given to them that the name of Hardeep Singh was not entered in the record of Ex.RX.
I have heard both the learned counsel for the parties and perused the available record with their able assistance.
This matter pertains to the determination of age of an accused in terms of the Section 12 of the Act. In order to appreciate the controversy, it is necessary to refer to Section 12 of the Act, which reads as under:
"12. Procedure to be followed in determination of Age.--
(1) ............
(2) ............
(3) In every case concerning a child or juvenile in
conflict with law, the age determination inquiry shall be conducted by the court or the Board or, as the case may be, the Committee by seeking evidence by obtaining--
(a) (i) the matriculation or equivalent
certificates, if available; and in the
absence whereof;
(ii) the date of birth certificate from the
school (other than a play school) first
attended; and in the absence whereof;
(iii) the birth certificate given by a
corporation or a municipal authority or
a panchayat;
(b) and only in the absence of either (i), (ii) or (iii) of clause (a) above, the medical opinion will be sought from a duly constituted Medical CRR-2332-2011 [4] ::::::::
Board, which will declare the age of the juvenile or child. In case exact assessment of the age cannot be done, the Court or the Board or, as the case may be, the Committee, for the reasons to be recorded by them, may, if considered necessary, given benefit to the child or juvenile by considering his/her age on lower side within the margin of one year.
and, while passing orders in such case shall, after taking into consideration such evidence as may be available, or the medical opinion, as the case may be, record a finding in respect of his age and either of the evidence specified in any of the clauses (a)(i),
(ii), (iii) or in the absence whereof, clause (b) shall be the conclusive proof of the age as regards such child or the juvenile in conflict with law."
According to Section 12(3) of the Act, wherever the Court is concerned with the determination of age of a child or a juvenile, who is in conflict with law, it can conduct an inquiry by seeking evidence by obtaining the matriculation or equivalent certificates, if available; and in the absence thereof, the date of birth certificate from the school first attended, and in the absence thereof, the birth certificate given by a corporation or a municipal authority or a panchayat. It is well settled principle of interpretation that the Legislature does not waste its words and say anything in vain. The presumption is always against superfluity in a Statute. Thus, every part of the Statute should be given as far as possible its full meaning and effect and no issue or clause should ordinarily be rejected or superfluitied. In Section 12(3)(a)(i) of the Act, the Legislature has intentionally used the word "the matriculation or equivalent certificates, if available;" and "in the absence whereof". Similarly in Section 12(3)(a)(ii) of the Act, words "the date of birth certificate from the school (other than a play school) first attended;" and "in the absence whereof" have been used and in the Section 12(3)(a)(iii), the words "the birth certificate given by a corporation or a municipal authority or a panchayat" have been used. In my view, the Legislature had dealt with various segments of the society wherein some people have CRR-2332-2011 [5] ::::::::
passed matriculation or equivalent class, some people had not reached upto matric or equivalent course and are drop out from the school and some people are totally illiterate. Keeping all the three segments in view, the aforesaid provisions of Section 12(3)(a)(i), (ii) and (iii) were enacted and the word "shall" has been used in Section 12(3) of the Act for the purpose of conducing an inquiry by seeking evidence by obtaining matriculation or equivalent certificates if it is found that the person concerned is educated upto that standard and if that is not available, as the word "if available"
and "in the absence whereof" sound the same sense, then the Court may switch over to the date of birth certificate from the school first attended (other than a play school) and if that is also not available, where the said person has not even gone to the school at all, then the reliance is to be placed upon the birth certificate issued by the corporation, municipal authority of a panchayat.
Thus, in the presence of matriculation or equivalent certificates, the Court cannot give preference to the birth certificate issued by the municipal authority as has been done in the present case, which otherwise also is not apparently connected with the petitioner because in the said certificate, the name of the petitioner has been mentioned as Kamaljit Singh instead of Hardeep Singh; his mother's name has been mentioned as Baljit Kaur instead of Gurpreet Kaur and they have been shown to be the resident of village Dadu, Tehsil and District Bhiwani, whereas the petitioner is the resident of village Dadu, Tehsil Kalanwali, District Sirsa.
Thus, in my view, the learned Court below has committed a patent error in the exercise of its jurisdiction in giving preference to the statements of RW1 and RW2 and placing reliance on Ex.RX over and above the document Ex.A1/Anenxure P-2. In this view of the matter, the present revision petition is allowed and the petitioner is declared to be a juvenile on the basis of the document Ex.A1/Annexure P-2 in which his date of birth is recorded as 04.04.1993, according to which he was below 18 years of age on the date of occurrence i.e. 08.03.2011.
November 16, 2011 (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) vinod* JUDGE