2005 (2) Crimes
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Satish Kumar Mittal, J.
Balkar Singh —Petitioner
versus
State of Punjab —Respondent
Criminal Revision No. 1823 of 2004
Decided on 16.12.2004

Important Point
While dealing with the case of Juvenile based on school certificate in absence of anything showing that entries in school leaving certificate did not relate to accused or were incorrect same could not be rejected on a surmise that generally parents understate the age of child at the time of admission.

Headnote:(i) Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 — Sections 2(k) and 18 — Juvenile delinquent — Petitioner accused was summoned by trial court in exercise of its power u/s. 319, Cr.P.C. to face trial on a charge of murder with other two accused — Petitioner claimed to be Juvenile and produced school certificates showing his age 15 years one month on the date of occurrence — His claim was rejected by trial court on ground that date of birth given at the time of admission in school was seldom correct as attempt was made by parents to under state the age — Revision — View taken by trial court was not correct and sustainable as it was based on conjectures — No contrary evidence was produced by State regarding age of petitioner — Impugned order of trial court was liable to be set aside.

       Held: Applying the aforesaid propositions of law to the facts of the present case, the view taken by the trial Court is not sustainable as the same is based on surmises and conjectures. The petitioner placed on record school certificates of 5th and 8th class, Ex. Al and Ex. A2, which were prepared and issued even prior to the date of alleged occurrence and according to the date of birth given therein, the petitioner was a juvenile on the date of alleged occur­rence. It is not the case of the prosecution that these certificates are not genuine or are forged one. No contrary evidence regarding age of the petitioner has been led by the prosecution. Even no attempt was made by it to conduct the ossification test of the petitioner. The afore­said certificates are the next best evidence in absence of any entry in the office of Registrar, Births and Deaths. Melo Kaur, mother of the petitioner, while appearing as AW.3, has stated that the petitioner was born at village Dhanpur, the house of her parents, and she belongs to Majbi Sikh caste. Thus, no entry was made with the Registrar, Births and Deaths. Therefore, no birth certificate could be available. The petitioner has also examined a school teacher, who has categorically stated that the petitioner is a student of 10th class. He also proved his date of birth, as per the school record. All this evidence cannot be ignored in absence of any contrary evidence. The trial Court has ignored these evidence merely on the basis of conjectures while observing that the date of birth given at the time of admission in school is seldom correct and does not depict the actual age of the child, as an attempt is made by the parents to understate the age of their child. In support of this conclusion, the learned trial Court has relied upon judgment of this Court in Harpal v. State of Haryana,2004(1) RCR (Crl.) 480, which is not at all applicable to the facts of the present case, as it pertains to the case where age of the prosecutrix in a rape case was in question. The ratio of that judgment cannot be made applicable to the present case, which is for determining the age of an accused under the Juvenile Justice Act, in which a hyper-technical approach should not be adopted while ap­preciating the evidence produced on behalf of the accused. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajinder Chandra’s case, 2002 (1) Recent Criminal Reports 586 (SC) has clearly laid down that where two views are possible on evidence regarding age of the accused to find out as to whether he is a juvenile or not, the Court should lean in favour of holding the accused to be a juvenile. While determining the factum of age and appreciating the evidence led in this regard, the Court should keep in mind the aim and object for which the Juvenile Justice Act has been enacted. In this case, the learned trial Court did not appreciate the evidence led by the prosecution in its right perspective and has come to a perverse conclusion. In my opinion, the evidence led by the petitioner, as discussed above, clearly establish that the date of birth of the petitioner is 15.11.1987 and at the time of the alleged occurrence as well as on the date when he was ordered to be sum­moned to face trial under Section 319 Cr.P.C., he was juvenile. Thus, the finding recorded by the trial Court that the petitioner was not a juvenile is set aside. (Para 15)

       (ii) Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 — Section 12 — Delinquent juvenile — Bail — Grant of bail to a juvenile was mandatory and could be declined only if there were reasonable grounds for believing that his release was likely to bring him in association with any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or that his release would defeat ends of justice. (Para 16)

       Result : Revision allowed.