Honble RAFIQ, J.–This revision petition has been filed against the order dated 17.8.2007 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 3, Jhunjhunu, Camp at Khetri whereby the application of the petitioner for determination of his status as juvenile under Section 2(k) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 has been rejected.

(2). Factual matrix of the case is that a first information report for offence under Section 365, 394, 302 and 201 IPC was lodged against the petitioner with Police Station, Khetri. Petitioner applied for grant of bail pending trial under Section 439 Cr.P.C. which was rejected by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khetri. Petitioner thereupon moved the Court of Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 2, Jhunjhunu Headquarter Khetri on the premises that his date of birth being 26.6.1989, on the date of incident, which is 26.4.2007, his age was 17 years and 10 months. This was contested by the prosecution which made an application for enquiry into the question of age of the petitioner. The Court by its order dated 13.6.2007 directed for Constitution of Medical Board for determination of the age of the petitioner. The Court also allowed the parties to adduce the evidence. The accused petitioner produced Ashok Kumar, Head Master of the Government Primary School Ismilepur as AW-1 and Ratni, mother of the petitioner as AW-2, apart from producing his date of birth certificate from the said school as Ex. A1, the copy of admission register as Ex. A2 and copy of the admission form as Ex.C.1(A). The prosecution produced Dr. Mani Ram as NAW- 1, Dr. Karan Singh as NAW-2, Radhey Shyam as NAW-3 and also produced the report of the Medical Board as NA-1, X-ray plates as NA-2 to 5 and certified copy of the voter list as NA-6. The learned Additional Sessions Judge by the impugned order dated 17.8.2007 held that age of the petitioner as on the date of incident was more than 18 years and therefore he was not a juvenile in the meaning of Section 2(k) of the Act. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has now preferred the present revision petition before this Court.

(3). I have heard Shri Gajanand Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri B.S. Chhaba, learned Public Prosecutor and Shri M.K. Kaushik, learned counsel for the complainant.

(4). Shri Gajanand Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the order passed by the Court below has argued that it has erred in law in not accepting the date of birth certificate issued by the school as relevant evidence under Section 35 of the Evidence Act for determination of the age of the petitioner. The certificate could not be discarded so lightly and only because the headmaster of the time when the petitioner was admitted to the school was not produced. The present headmaster of the school, namely-AW-1 Ashok Kumar, had appeared before the Court as a witness and proved the veracity of the S.R. register as also the certificate which was issued on the basis of the school records. Shri Ashok Kumar had categorically stated that the date of birth of the petitioner as 26.6.1989 was entered in the school records on the basis of affidavit of his father, but non production of that affidavit could not be the basis for completely ignoring the school certificate. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Court below has misread the statement of AW-2 Ratni Devi. She had clearly stated that her marriage was solemnized in the year 1981 and she gave birth to two female children with the gap of three years each and two years and after the birth of the second female child the petitioner was born and thereafter four more female children were born to her after interval of every two years. Her youngest daughter Manju was born in 1995. The Court has however misinterpreted the statement of petitioners mother when she said that her youngest daughter is aged about 10 years on the date of recording of statement on 11.6.07. The Cour

Click Here to Read the rest of this document