Punjab-Haryana High Court
Pankaj vs State Of Haryana on 25 November, 2014
Author: Mehinder Singh Sullar
Bench: Mehinder Singh Sullar
CRR No.4002 of 2013 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRR No.4002 of 2013
Date of Decision: 25.11.2014
Pankaj ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR
Present: Mr.K.D.S.Hooda, Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms.Kirti Singh, DAG Haryana for respondent.
Mr.Navneet Singh, Advocate for the complainant.
Mehinder Singh Sullar, J. (Oral)
The contour of the facts & material, culminating in the commencement, relevant for the limited purpose of deciding the instant revision petition and emanating from the record, is that, initially, in the wake of complaint of complainant Ved Parkash son of Lalu Ram Saini (for brevity "the complainant"), a criminal case was registered against petitioner- accused Pankaj s/o Chhote Lal, r/o village Devariya Koti, Distt. Mujaffar Nagar (Bihar), vide FIR No.383 dated 4.12.2012, on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under sections 376, 363 and 366 IPC and Section 4 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter to be referred as "the POCSO Act") by the police of Police Station Sector 10, Gurgaon.
2. Thereafter, the application to declare the petitioner as juvenile was dismissed, by means of impugned order dated 4.10.2013 by the Magistrate.
ARVIND SHARMA2014.11.26 13:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRR No.4002 of 2013 2
3. Aggrieved thereby, the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed as well, by way of impugned judgment dated 20.11.2013 by the appellate Court (Addl.Sessions Judge).
4. Sequelly, the petitioner still did not feel satisfied and preferred the present revision petition to challenge the impugned order/judgment of Courts below, invoking the provisions of section 401 Cr.PC. That is how I am seized of the matter.
5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, having gone through the record with their valuable help and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant revision petition in this context.
6. As is evident from the record that in order to substantiate the plea of juvenility, the petitioner has examined Prashant Kumar (AW1) and produced school leaving certificate (Ex.AW1/C), authorization letter (Ex.1/B) and certificate (Ex.AW1/A) issued by the Principal, Rajkiya Madhyamic Vidyalay, Devarya, Bihar. The date of birth of petitioner was mentioned as 21.11.1995 in the pointed school leaving certificates.
7. On the contrary, the prosecution has examined PW1 Manoj, Manager of Venkateshwar Auto Components Pvt. Ltd., who has, inter-alia maintained, on oath, that the petitioner was working in his company and had claimed the compensation in lieu of loss of his one finger on the basis of school leaving certificate (Ex.PI), in which, his age was mentioned as 6.6.1992. He has also produced wages sheet (Ex.P2), compensation form (Ex.P3), memorandum of agreement between employer and workman (Ex.P4) issued by the Commissioner, under the Workmen Compensation Act, medical fitness certificate (Ex.P5) and photograph mark A of ARVIND SHARMA 2014.11.26 13:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRR No.4002 of 2013 3 petitioner. That means, two school leaving certificates of petitioner are available on the record, in which, his different dates of birth are mentioned. The trial Court after taking into consideration the entire material/evidence on record, accepted the initial certificate submitted by him at the time of claiming compensation under the Workmen Compensation Act, negated the plea of juvenility and dismissed his application, by way of impugned order dated 4.10.2013.
8. Not only that, the matter was re-examined and the appellate Court has dismissed the appeal of petitioner as well, by means of impugned judgment dated 20.11.2013, which, in substance, is as under (para 10) :-
"Reverting back to the facts of the case on one side there is a claim of juvenility and evidence of AW1 Parshat Kumar, official of Government Middle School, Deveriya and the extract of admission register for year 2006 showing the date of birth of the applicant- accused as dated 27.11.1995 and his date of admission in the school as 18.8.2006. On the other hand, there is a document of the prosecution Ex.P1 which is transfer certificate of school submitted by the accused, to prove his majority to claim compensation under Workman Compensation Claim because of injury suffered while working with Venkateshwar Auto Components (Private ) Ltd. As per this certificate which is issued by Government Middle School, Imadpur, in the name of Pankaj Kumar son of Chotte Lal Shah, resident of Deveriya, date of admission in the school is shown as 3.7.2006 and date of leaving school is shown as 31.3.2009 and the date of birth is shown as 6.6.1992. Since neither employability of the accused with Venkateshwar Company is denied by the accused, nor, he has denied to have claimed the compensation, only conclusion to be arrived at is that the Ex.P1, was submitted by the accused and not by any one else to get the compensation under the scheme. If this be so Ex.P1 being document of the accused does not need any formal proof as otherwise argued for the accused. The accused cannot disown Ex.P1 which show his date of birth as 6.6.1992 and out of the two school certificate AW-1/A and Ex.P1, the latter has the earlier entry of date of admission i.e.3.7.2006. There is also no proof showing as to when the accused joined the school initially. So, taking Ex.P1 as the document reliable, it is to be concluded that on the date of commission of offence, the accused was major.
The appellant has taken the plea that the document Ex.AW1/A, showing his date of birth as 27.11.1995, is more reliable. But, to the mind of this court, accused's own document Ex.P1, a transfer certificate issued by the school is more reliable, than, the entry register in class 6th Ex.AW-1/A showing admission of the accused on dated 18.8.2006. It is not out of place to mention here that the date of admission in Ex.AW-1/A is the date after the date of admission shown in transfer certificate Ex.P1. Further, there ARVIND SHARMA 2014.11.26 13:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRR No.4002 of 2013 4 is no satisfactory explanation from accused's side as to how he was attending school at two places one at Government Middle School, Imadpur (Ex.P1) where he got admission on dated 3.7.2006, which he left on dated 31.3.2009, after studying till 8th class and secondly at Government Middle Deveriya, which he joined on dated 18.8.2006, in 6th Class (Ex.A1/A). Even the ossification report dated 26.8.2013, has clear mention that age of the accused is between 18 to 19 years. Thus, the collective reading of Ex.P1 and the ossification test report are indicative of the fact that accused was major on dated 4.12.2012 i.e. the date of commission of offence. Accordingly, he is not juvenile and rightly held so by learned trial Court."
9. Meaning thereby, the Courts below have examined the matter in the right perspective and recorded the cogent grounds in this relevant connection. The learned counsel for petitioner did not point out any material, muchless cogent, so as to interfere in the impugned order/judgment. Such order/judgment, containing valid reasons, cannot possibly be interfered with by this Court, in the exercise of limited revisional jurisdiction under Section 401 Cr.PC, unless and until, the same are illegal, perverse and without jurisdiction. Since no such patent illegality or legal infirmity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, so, the impugned order/judgment deserve to be and are hereby maintained in the obtaining circumstances of the case.
10. No other legal point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the learned counsel for the parties.
11. In the light of aforesaid reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, instant revision petition is hereby dismissed as such.
25.11.2014 (Mehinder Singh Sullar)
AS Judge
ARVIND SHARMA
2014.11.26 13:53
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh