Delhi District Court
Shri Rajesh Kumar vs State (Nct Of Delhi) on 29 August, 2011
ID No. 02406R0050772011
IN THE COURT OF SH. VINAY KUMAR KHANNA
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE04
SOUTH EAST: SAKET COURTS: DELHI
Criminal Revision No. 19/2011
ID No. 02406R0050772011
Shri Rajesh Kumar
S/o Late Shri Bhim Singh Nagar
R/o H. No. 157, Aali Village,
New Delhi. ...........Revisionist
Versus
State (NCT of Delhi) ..........Respondent No. 1
Shri Rahul @ Pradhan
S/o Shri Om Prakash,
R/o Village Garhi, Kalangiri,
PS Chandi Pur, Distt. Baghpat, U.P. ..........Respondent No. 2
Instituted on : 05th March, 2011
Argued on : 29th August, 2011
Decided on : 29th August, 2011
ORDER
This criminal revision is directed against the order dated 09.02.2011 passed by Learned Juvenile Justice Board, in FIR No. 351/10, PS Sarita Vihar, u/s 302 r/w 34 IPC, whereby the Learned Court has declared Rahul @ Pradhan, respondent no. 2 as Juvenile.
In the impugned order dated 09.02.2011, Learned Juvenile Justice Board has observed that : No record was found in respect of schools where the juvenile studied till class5th. It is observed that Learned Counsel for the complainant objected to the fact that Jony had been 'cut' and 'Rahul' had been inserted in the documents which had been produced. Ld. Counsel for the complaint had further objected that the record of the first attended school is not available and the ossification test should be got done. However, Ld. JJB considered the record of the school in which the juvenile got admission in class 5th and Rajesh Vs. State & Ors. -CR No. 19/2011 1/3 ID No. 02406R0050772011 believed the same without adducing any evidence .
I have heard submission advanced by Sh. Rajesh Arora, Ld. Counsel for the revisionist and Sh.WasiurRahman, Ld. Addl. PP for the State/Respondent No. 1 & Sh. Sudhanshu Rajput, Ld. Counsel for the respondent no.2 and have perused the record carefully.
Ld. Counsel for the revisionist submits that the Learned Juvenile Justice Board passed the impugned order without taking into account the fact that the school leaving certificate produced by respondent no. 2 on the face of it appears to be forged, having many alteration and cutting and he had disputed the authenticity of the said document before the Board. He submit that the said certificate issued on 18.07.2005 mention the name 'Jony' and also 'Rahul', but the name of the respondent No. 2 is alleged to be Rahul @ Pradhan in the record. No where, it is stated that his name is 'Jony'. He further submits that Investigating Officer in his report also mentioned that parents of the respondent no. 2 were deliberately not disclosing the first attending school by respondent no. 2. He submits that the allegations against the accused/respondent no. 2 are serious and Learned Trial Cout has passed the order in mechanical manner without adducing the evidence. In support of his submissions, Learned Counsel relied upon Jabar Singh Vs. Dinesh & Anr.,2010 [2] JCC 1023 wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the age of the person, who committed the offence must be determined keeping in view the 'factual matrix' involved in each case and when a question of accused being Juvenile or not is raised before any Court, which is disputed by the State or complainant, 'it may be decided by recording the evidence'. In Puneet Vasudeva Vs. State & Anr., 2009[2] JCC 1415 , it was observed that the relying upon school leaving certificate without recording the evidence was not sustainable.
In the present case, perusal of record shows that the Juvenile Board has not given an opportunity to the complainant to show that the certificate produced by the respondent no. 2/accused is forged. No witness has been summoned from the school. In this case, the certificate is not issued by any public servant and the school from where it is issued is stated to be 'an aided private Rajesh Vs. State & Ors. -CR No. 19/2011 2/3 ID No. 02406R0050772011 school'. It is submitted that the entry in the school leaving certificate was not made by public servant in the charge of official duty. Simply on the basis of this certificate, Learned Juvenile Board ought not have decided claim of Juvenality. In the circumstances, when the complainant has alleged that the certificate, which is neither the first attended school nor of matriculation and is also not a municipal certificate as required under Rule 12 of Juvenile Justice (Child and Protection of children) Rule 2007, claim should not have been decided hurriedly and it was incumbent upon the Board to 'decide the objections' and the 'claim of Juvenality' after adducing necessary evidence and giving due opportunity to complainant/State. On considering the submission made at bar and perusal of the record, I find substance in the contentions raised by the Learned Counsel for the revisionist. When there are disputed questions of facts, evidence should be allowed to be adduced to determine the 'claim'.
In the result, I allow this revision and set aside the impugned order dated 09.02.2011 passed by Learned Juvenile Justice Board and remit back the case to Juvenile Justice Board to decide the claim of Juvenality and consider the objections raised by the revisionist, in accordance with Law.
TCR be sent back with a copy of this order. Respondent no. 2/ Rahul @ Pradhan is directed to appear before the Ld. Juvenile Justice Board on 06.09.2011. Revision file be consigned to Record Room.
announced in the open court on 29 August, 2011.
th (VINAY KUMAR KHANNA) Additional Sessions Judge04 (SouthEast) Saket/New Delhi Rajesh Vs. State & Ors. -CR No. 19/2011 3/3