Punjab-Haryana High Court
Amit vs State Of Haryana on 19 January, 2010
Author: S.S. Saron
Bench: S.S. Saron
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
......
Criminal Revision No.2047 of 2009
.....
Date of decision:19.1.2010
Amit
.....Petitioner
v.
State of Haryana
.....Respondents
....
Present: Mr. Pritam Saini, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Pawan Singh, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana for
the respondent-State.
.....
S.S. Saron, J.
The criminal revision petition has been filed by the petitioner- Amit against the order dated 13.7.2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat whereby application dated 17.11.2008 filed by the petitioner for declaring him as a juvenile has been dismissed.
The petitioner is facing prosecution in case FIR No.194 dated 23.6.2008 registered at Police Station Sadar Panipat for the offence under Section 396 Indian Penal Code (`IPC' - for short). The petitioner claimed that he was below 18 years of age on the date of occurrence. Therefore, he filed an application dated 17.11.2008 for declaring him as a juvenile. The said application having been dismissed, he has filed the present petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the learned trial Court without considering the fact that the petitioner had Cr. Revision No.2047 of 2009 [2] placed an attested copy of the birth certificate (Ex.A.7/A) issued by the Government of U.P. showing his date of birth as 10.7.1993 has wrongly not declared him as a juvenile. Moreover, father of the petitioner, namely, Brij Pal appeared as AW-6 and he also stated that the date of birth of his son (petitioner) is 10.7.1993. It is submitted that the provisions of Rule 12(a) and (b) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules (Rules - for short) have not been complied with. Therefore, it is submitted that the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
In response, Mr. Pawan Singh, learned counsel for the State has submitted that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has rightly taken into consideration the entry as shown in the `Parivar' register of the year 2001 wherein the date of birth of Amit was entered on 10.7.1993 in the year 2001and the record produced does not tally with the actual facts and circumstances.
After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, it may be noticed that the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat in her impugned order dated 13.7.2009 has referred to the attested copy of the birth certificate (Ex.A.7/A) issued by the Government of U.P. showing the date of birth of accused Amit (petitioner) as 10.7.1993. To prove the said certificate, the petitioner examined Pankaj Kumar, Gram Panchayat Vikas Adhikari, Development Block Oon, Village Hasanpur Muzzafarnagar as AW7. The date of registration in the register of the birth entry has been shown as 6.11.2008. It has been stated by Pankaj Kumar (AW-7) that the date of registration in the `Parivar' register was made in the year 2001. The learned Additional Sessions Judge held that the basis of entry has been Cr. Revision No.2047 of 2009 [3] shown as entry made in `Parivar' register in the year 2001, yet no entry had been placed on record of `Parivar' register wherein the date of birth of Amit was entered as 10.7.1993 in the year 2001. Brij Pal (AW-6) father of the petitioner stated that date of birth of his son is 10.7.1999. The date of incident in the present case is 23.6.2008 and entry in the record of the Registrar, Births and Death, Gram Panchayat Hassanpur, District Muzaffarnagar (UP) was made on 6.11.2008 i.e. after the occurrence. In the circumstances, it has rightly been held that possibility could not be ruled out that after registration of FIR against the accused Amit (petitioner) he had tried to procure a certificate showing his date of birth as 10.7.1993 thereby showing him to be juvenile on the date of occurrence.
Keeping in view the fact that entry recorded in the register of Registrar of Births and Deaths was made on 6.11.2008 after the incident of 26.6.2008, there is no illegality in the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge declining to declare the petitioner as a juvenile. As such, the provisions of Rule 12(a) and 12(b) would be inapplicable. Rule 12(a)(3) of the Rules provides for the procedure to be followed in determination of age. In terms of Rule 12(a)(3) of the Rules, initially the Matriculation or equivalent Certificate is to be seen, if available. In the absence of Matriculation Certificate, the date of birth certificate from the school first attended other than a play school and in the absence of such a certificate, the birth certificate given by a Corporation or a Municipal authority or the Panchayat. In terms of Clause (b), only in the absence of Clauses (i), (ii) or (iii) of Clause (a), a medical opinion is to be sought by a duly constituted Medical Board, which would declare the age of the juvenile Cr. Revision No.2047 of 2009 [4] child. The question of applicability of Clause (b) of Rule 12(3) of the Rules for conducting ossification test would indeed arise if the other conditions envisaged by Rule 12(a) are not fulfilled.
In the present case, the petitioner has a birth certificate which, however, does not inspire confidence. Therefore, for failure to prove the age by way of a necessary certificate, an ossification test is not to be resorted to as that would be in the nature of a continuous inquiry for the determination of age. The process of holding an ossification test for determining the age of a person is to be resorted to when the other material as contemplated by Rule 12(a)(3) is not there. The same is not to be resorted to for the failure to establish by cogent evidence the other available material.
Consequently, there is no merit in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.
January 19, 2010. (S.S. Saron) Judge *hsp*