Madhya Pradesh High Court
Jasvant Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 20 March, 2015
1 Cr. R. No.481 of 2007
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
SINGLE BENCH: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUBHASH KAKADE
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 481 of 2007
APPLICANT: Jasvant Singh
Versus
RESPONDENT: State of Madhya Pradesh
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri Amit Dubey, Advocate for the applicant.
Shri R.S. Dubey, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(ORDER) 20.03.2015 This revision under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, here-in-after referred to as "the Code", has been filed by the applicant being aggrieved by the order dated 15.02.2007, passed in Sessions Trial No.190/2004, by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Begamganj (Fast Track) of 3rd Additional Sessions Judge Raisen, District Raisen, dismissing the application filed by the applicant for claiming the benefit of juvenile justice Act, 1986.
02. On 31.08.2004 at 12:15 p.m. (noon) on a trifle issue the applicant inflicted injury on the head of Ratan Singh by Lohangi, a sharp edged weapon. In consequence of this blow Ratan Singh fell down, blood heavily oozing out and ultimately he succumbed to injury. Chhotelal, son of Ratan Singh lodged FIR at Police Station Sultanganj, District Raisen. Usual investigation was conducted and after completion of investigation the police submitted the charge sheet 2 Cr. R. No.481 of 2007 against the applicant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC.
03. Right from beginning the applicant claimed himself to be a juvenile as his date of birth is 02.06.1998, hence having not attend the age of 16 years on the date of incident i.e. 31.08.2004 and claimed for the benefit as he was entitled under the provisions of Juvenile Justice Act, 1986.
04. Simple equation is that if the applicant succeeded to prove that his date of birth is 02.06.1988, then by counting age of the applicant in light of date of incident 02.08.2004 (learned trial Court wrongly mentioned the date of birth 02.09.2004 instead of 02.08.2004), his age will come under 18 years i.e. 16 years and 2 months.
05. An enquiry was held by learned trial Court 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Raisen. During the enquiry on behalf of the applicant his mark sheet of Class-X and High School Certificate were produced, birth certificate, horoscope and entry in village Mavai record book maintained by Kotwar were also tendered as documentary evidence. In all of these documents date of birth of the applicant was entered as 02.07.1988. Assistant Teacher Prabhudayal Shukla (PW/1) and Hari Singh (PW/2), father of the applicant were also examined in support of the claim of the applicant. By impugned order learned Fast Track Court held that the applicant is not a juvenile, hence the applicant preferred this revision.
06. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned Fast Track Court is illegal, erroneous and contrary to the law as well as facts because, learned 3 Cr. R. No.481 of 2007 trial Court committed grave error while interpreting the statements of the witnesses examined on behalf of applicant and documents exhibited. It is further submitted that as per evidence filed by the applicant it is proved that the date of birth of the applicant is 02.06.1998, therefore, he is minor. Hence, prayed for quashment of impugned order.
07. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/State, on the other hand, defend the impugned order passed by learned Fast Track Court and argued that the applicant being major on the date of incident, hence he will be tried by regular Sessions Court only.
08. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, perusal of record as well as the impugned order, the Court is of the opinion that this revision petition deserves to be rejected.
09. Assistant Teacher of Middle School Mavai, Shri Prabhu Dayal Shukla (PW/1) stated in his statement, during his statements documents (Ex.D-1 to D-4 with their copies Ex.D-1 C to D-4 C) were tendered that the basis of entry of date of birth 02.06.1998 of the applicant was a slip which was produced his father Hari Singh (PW/2) at the time of admission of the applicant in the said school. Hari Singh (PW/2) admitted that this slip was issued by Pandit Ji the Priest. It is pertinent to mention here that the said slip does not make available during the statements of Shri Prabhu Dayal Shukla (PW/1) and Hari Singh (PW/2). In spite of it, Hari Singh (PW/1) admitted that Pandit Ji is no more now and his son also left the profession of Panditai. The name of the Pandit Ji is also not mentioned by Hari Singh (PW/2) at any stage of his examination.
4 Cr. R. No.481 of 2007
10. Shri Prabhu Dayal Shukla (PW/1) also admitted during his cross examination that he did not bring the original form of admission and also pointed out over righting in Pravesh Panji (Ex.D-2) in the name of the father of the applicant.
11. In above facts and circumstances learned trial Court rightly rejected the testimony of Shri Prabhu Dayal Shukla (PW/1) as well as Hari Singh (PW/2) and documentary value of documents Ex.D-1 to D-4 on the basis of creation of doubtful situation.
12. Where a juvenile adducing evidence in spite of his plea of minority, and reliance placed on evidence like the school admission register and that too date of birth in school admission register was recorded on the basis of a slip issued by Pandit which are not proved and oral evidence also based on conjectures leading to ambiguity, cannot be relied upon.
13. Accordingly, this revision petition stands dismissed as having no merits.
14. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the learned trial Court with a direction that the trial be concluded as soon as possible.
(Subhash Kakade) Judge ak.