The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for genuine and reliable evidence to prove juvenility, and the importance of contemporaneous evidence in such determinations.

ORDER

Vinod S. Bhardwaj, J. - The instant revision petition has been filed for setting aside the order dated 26.10.2018 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Namaul, whereby the application submitted by the petitioner for declaring him as a juvenile on the date of occurrence had been dismissed in the case arising out of FIR No.658 dated 30.12.2014 under Sections 148, 149, 323, 302, 307, 216 IPC and Section 25/54/59 of the Arms Act, registered at Police Station Mahendergarh, District Mahendergarh.

2. The facts of the case in brief are that a criminal case was registered on the statement of complainant-Ajit son of Hanuman wherein he had alleged that he along with Kukku son of Nihal Singh and one Vikas son of Suman Kumar were standing at Kurahvata turn at around 04.00 pm on a motorcycle when the accused persons along with the petitioner came along with guliya and dandas in their hands. The accused caused injuries on the head and body of the complainant with their respective weapons and also fired a shot on the eye of Kukku which was stated to have been stained with blood. The assailants thereafter ran away from the spot along with their motorcycles and scooty upon people being attracted to the spot. On the basis of statement of the complainant, the aforesaid FIR for the commission of offences including Section 307 IPC was registered against the assailants including the petitioner. During investigation, Kukku succumbed to the injuries sustained by him in the incident and the offence under Section 302 IPC was added later on. The investigation was completed and a final report was filed on conclusion of the investigation against the petitioner even though material pertaining to juvenility of co-accused Naval and Hemant was collected by the investigating agency during the investigation. A separate juvenile challan was to be submitted against the accused Naval and Hemant Kumar who were claimed to be juvenile as on the date of commission of offence.

3. After the submission of the final report, the case was committed and charge framed. The petitioner did not raise any plea of juvenility. Evidence commenced and it was thereafter that the petitioner submitted an application dated 31.08.2017(Annexure P-10) before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Namaul for determining the claim of his juvenility at the time of commission of offence. It was claimed by the petitioner that the incident in question had taken place on 30.12.2014 and that he was bom on 03.09.1998 at Sri Ganganagar, Rajasthan. Hence, he was minor at the time of the incident in question. The said application has, however, been dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Namaul vide order dated 26.10.2018. The present revision petition has been preferred against the said order after a further delay of more than 2/2 years of the passing of the said order.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has vehemently argued that the documents issued by the authorities at Sri Ganganagar clearly established that date of birth of the petitioner is 03.09.1998 and that he was thus a minor as on the date of commission of offence on 30.12.2014. He has further relied upon the affidavit sworn by his mother in support of his date of birth. It is also claimed that father of the petitioner has appeared in the witness box and has reiterated the date of birth of the petitioner in his deposition i.e. 03.09.1998. He has also placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Manoj @ Monu @ Vishal Chaudhary Versus State of Haryana and another, 2022 AIR (Supreme Court) 1060, to contend that the birth certificate issued by a Municipal Authority or Panchayat is a relevant document to prove juvenility of an accused in preference to the school leaving record. He has argued that reliance of the prosecution on the school certificate showing his date of birth as 03.09.1994 is thus liable to be disregarded on appraisal/consideration thereof against the birth certificate i