IMPORTANT POINT
Juvenility on the date of commission of the offence can be claimed even after attaining majority.

JUDGMENT

Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.-Leave granted. The sole accused is the appellant herein. The challenge is to the judgment of the High Court of Delhi in Crl.A.669/1999 dated 07.01.2011 by which the conviction and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years imposed on the appellant for an offence punishable under Section 307, IPC and a fine of Rs.200/-with a default sentence of further rigorous imprisonment for 15 days came to be confirmed.

2. At the time of filing of the Special Leave Petition in this matter, the point raised was that the petitioner (appellant) was a juvenile on the date of commission of the offence and reliance was placed upon the School Leaving Certificate issued by the Principal/Head Master of Primary School, Chitayan, Distt. Mainpuri, Uttar Pradesh. The date of birth of the petitioner was noted as 01.12.1981. The alleged offence was stated to have been committed on 11.03.1998 and if the date of birth noted in the certificate is found to be true, the petitioner would have been 16 years 3 months and 10 days on the date of incident, namely, 11.03.1998.

3. On hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, by an order dated 01.08.2011, while taking the said certificate on record, since for the first time such a claim was raised, the District and Sessions Judge, Itawa, Uttar Pradesh was directed to summon the Principal along with the original admission/School Leaving Registers and was directed to submit a report. Thereafter a report was received from the District and Sessions Judge, Itawa stating that prima facie the date of birth of the appellant appeared to be 01.12.1981. However, after examining the original records forwarded by the learned District Judge, Itawa, it was noticed that the report was not a full-fledged one.

4. The learned District Judge was, therefore, directed to examine the issue as to whether the appellant was a juvenile on 11.03.1998, by summoning the parties before it and also examine any other document, to adduce and submit a report within a period of six weeks to the Court. The said order was passed on 30.01.2012. Pursuant to the said directions, the learned District Judge has now filed a detailed report dated 26.03.2012. A perusal of the report discloses that the Principal/Head Master of Primary School, Chitayan, Distt. Mainpuri, Uttar Pradesh was examined as CW-1 on 05.03.2012, who is stated to have produced the counter foil of the School Leaving Certificate relating to the appellant marked as Exhibit CW-1/A according to which the date of birth of the appellant was 01.12.1981. The document also disclosed that the appellant was admitted to the school on 01.08.1989 and relieved from the school on 01.07.1992 after passing 5th standard. According to him, the Admission Register also disclosed that the date of birth of the appellant was noted as 01.12.1981.

5. The learned District Judge, apart from ascertaining the said facts from the records, stated to have referred the appellant for examination by the Medical Board consisting of Dr. Sunil Kakkar (CW- 2), Dr. Akansha (CW-3), Dr. Sameer Dhari (CW-4) and Dr. Kumar Narender Mohan (CW5). Dr. Sunil Kakkar (CW-2), HOD Radiology, Chairman, Standing Committee Age Determination Record stated before the learned District Judge that the appellant was examined by the Board on 01.03.2012 by the members of the Board consisting of a Physician, Dentist and another radiologist. On such examination, as per the bone age report (Exhibit CW2/A), the Board opined that the age of the appellant was above 22 years and below 25 years as on the date of his examination, namely, on 01.03.2012. The other members of the Medical Board also confirmed the said view of the Medical Board.

6. Based on the above factors, the District Judge has returned a finding that as on the date of the incident, namely, 11.03.1998, the age of the appellant was less than 18 years and, therefore, he was a ‘juvenile’ on that date. The offence alleged against the ap