Back
2005 Supreme(Raj) 1203
High Court Of Rajasthan
Judgename : H.R. Panwar
Chetan Ram - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 165 of 2005
Decided On : 05/09/2005
Mr. Vijay Bishnoi, for the Petitioners.
Mr. J.P.S. Chaudhary, Public Prosecutor, for the State.
Mr. Suresh Kumbhat, for the Complainant.
The determination of a person's age at the time of the alleged incident is crucial in deciding whether they should be tried as a juvenile or an adult.
Headnote:
Juvenile - Criminal Procedure - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - [Sections 397/401] - Summary
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners challenged the trial court's order dismissing their application to be tried by the Juvenile Justice Board, claiming they were juveniles at the time of the alleged incident.
Finding of the Court:
The court upheld the trial court's decision regarding petitioner No. 1 Chetan Ram but set aside the decision for petitioner No. 2 Mamta, holding her to be a juvenile at the time of the incident.
Issues: The main issue was the determination of the petitioners' ages at the time of the alleged incident to decide whether they should be tried as juveniles.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on evidence from school records, ration cards, and witness testimonies to determine the petitioners' ages. It emphasized the importance of reliable evidence and the statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Final Decision: The court upheld the trial court's decision for petitioner No. 1 Chetan Ram but set aside the decision for petitioner No. 2 Mamta, holding her to be a juvenile at the time of the incident.
Key Points: - The age of the accused at the time of the alleged incident determines whether they are tried as juveniles or adults. (!) - The court upheld the trial court’s finding that petitioner No. 1 Chetan Ram was above 18 on the relevant date, but held petitioner No. 2 Mamta to be a juvenile at the time of the incident. (!) (!) (!) - Evidence considered for age includes school records, ration cards, and witness testimony, with emphasis on reliability and maintenance of such documents under Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act. (!) (!) (!) (!) - The date of determination for a juvenile is the date of the offense, not the date of production before the court. (!) - Reliance on statements under Section 313 CrPC regarding age is a key factor, and in some cases may be accepted as correct unless challenged. (!) (!) - The admissibility and evidentiary value of school/admission records depend on maintenance in due course of business and reliability of the source. (!) (!) - The impugned order was partly set aside to declare Mamta as a juvenile; Chetan Ram’s age finding remained upheld. (!)
Question 1?
Question 2?
Question 3?
H.R. Panwar, J.-By the instant criminal revision under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, "the Code"), the petitioners have challenged the order dated 17.02.2005 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 2, Pali (for short, "the trial Court" hereinafter), by which the trial Court dismissed the application dated 27.08.2004 filed by the petitioners seeking to declare that they were juvenile on the date of the alleged incident which took place on 210.2001 and as such they should be tried by the Juvenile Justice Board.
2. The petitioners are facing trial before the trial Court for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323 and 307, IPC. An application was filed by the petitioners on 27.08.2004 stating therein that on the date of the alleged incident, i.e. 210.2001, they were juvenile and, therefore, they
should be tried by the Juvenile Justice Board. The learned trial Court, vide order dated 08.09.2004, directed the parties to lead evidence regarding the age of the petitioners. On behalf of the petitioners, AW. 1 Ganga Singh (Ganga Shankar), AW. 2 Ranveer Singh and AW. 3 Bhanwar Lal have been examined. On behalf of the prosecution, NAW. 1 Jagdish Prasad has been examined.
3. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and the Public Prosecutor assisted by the Counsel for the complainant.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has contended that from the school record, which is a public documents and dismissible under Section 35 of the Evidence Act, it is established that the date of birth of petitioner No. 1 Chetan Ram is 10.07.1984 and the incident took place on 01.04.2001 and as such petitioner Chetan Ram was juvenile at the time of alleged commission of the crime. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance on a decision of Honble Supreme Court in Umesh Chandra vs. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1982 SC 1057. His further contention is that as per the ration card produced on record, the age of petitioner No. 2 Mamta was 14 years and from the oral evidence also, it is established that she is two years younger than petitioner No. 1 Chetan Ram. He has further contended that the trial Court has erred in law and on facts in over-looking the school record and ration card while dismissing the application. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and the Counsel for the complainant have supported the impugned order.
5. AW. 1 Ganga Singh (Ganga Shankar), the Acting Principal of Government Upper Primary School, Kherwa, produced before the trial Court the Scholars Register, School Admission Form, Transfer Certificate, marks-sheet of Class V and the Progress Report pertaining to accused-petitioner No. 1 Chetan Ram. As per the school record produced by AW. 1 Ganga Singh (Ganga Shankar), the date of birth of petitioner Chetan Ram is 10.07.1984. However, in cross-examination by the Additional Public Prosecutor, he has admitted that the school admission form of petitioner Chetan Ram was not filled-up in his presence. AW. 2 Ranveer Singh, Gram Sewak-cum-Secretary, Gram Panchayat, Bomadara, has stated that as per the Ration Card No. 700 dated 211.2001, which is in the name of Babu Lal S/o Ghisaji Gurjar R/o Balelao, the age of petitioner No. 2 Mamta, who is sister of Babu Lal, is 14 years. However, in cross-examination, he has admitted that he was appointed as the Gram Sewak-cum-Secretary in Gram Panchayat, Bomadara on 14.09.2002, i.e. after the date of issuance of the ration card as also after the date of occurrence.
6. AW. 3 Bhanwar Lal, who claims to be the real brother of the petitioners, has stated that he is the eldest son of his father and his age is 36 years. He has stated that it was he who had filled up the school admission form Exhibit D-5 of petitioner No. 1 Chetan Ram in the year 1996 after obtaining the thumb impression of his father. He has stated that the date of birth of petitioner No. 1 Chetan Ram is 10.07.1984 and further stated that at the time of admi
