Back
2025 Supreme(P&H) 1629
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J.
Rahul – Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana – Respondent
CRR No. 152 of 2024
Decided On : 08-09-2025
For the Appellant : Rahul Duhan
For the Respondent: Vipul Sherwal
The court ruled that age claims based on school documents require corroborative evidence to be credible, emphasizing that mere assertions without primary evidence are insufficient.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302 and 34 - Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 - Application for declaring accused as minor dismissed due to lack of evidence to support claim of age based on School Leaving Certificate - Court highlighted the necessity of primary evidence for establishing age, emphasizing that mere documents without corroborative proof are insufficient for determining juvenility. (Paras 6, 7, and 10)
(B) Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 35 - Entries in public documents are relevant but require corroborative material to substantiate claims of age - Judicial precedents reaffirm the importance of primary evidence concerning the basis of age recorded in school records. (Paras 8 and 9)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner appealed against the dismissal of a request to be declared a minor based on a school certificate stating an age of 17 at the time of an FIR for murder, which contradicted previous admissions of being older.
Findings of Court:
Court found that the petitioner failed to establish the legitimacy of the age asserted through appropriate documentation, resulting in the dismissal of the application.
Issues: The court addressed the validity of the petitioner’s age claim and the adequacy of evidence submitted for a declaration of juvenility.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that entries regarding age in school documents lack evidentiary value without supporting evidence and that an application for juvenility raised at a late stage undermines its credibility.
Result: Petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to order declaring accused as juvenile (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. incomplete evidence for age of the petitioner (Para 6 , 7) |
| 3. evidentiary requirements for date of birth proof (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. petition dismissed for lack of merit (Para 11) |
JUDGMENT :
JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J.
1. The prayer in the present petition is for setting aside the order dated 13.08.2019 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Karnal whereby the application for declaring the accused/petitioner as a minor moved by the petitioner in case titled State of Haryana Vs. Rahul & others has been dismissed.
2. The brief facts of the case are that an FIR No.275 dated 21.05.2017 U/s 302 read with Section 34 IPC , P.S. Gharaunda came to be registered at the instance of Pardeep Kumar and the same reads as under:-
“The copy of the statements of Pardeep Kumar S/o Isham Singh, Caste Barber, R/o Village Bal Rangdon, Police Station Gharaunda, District Karnal, Mobile No. 90342-15412, Stated that I am resident of the above said address and do welding work, we are three brothers, my eldest brother is Sandeep and I am younger than him. My brother Sandeep does Truck driving on 20.05.2017, I and my brother Sandeep was an altercation with Rahul S/o Pala Ram and Dinesh Kumar S/o Ranjit Akwam Pandit, R/o Bal Rangdon on 20.05.2017, when I and my brother Sandeep Devi Singh were standing in the field of resident of Pabana. The time was around 6 0'clock. Rahul and Dinesh also came there and started telling my brother Sandeep that they will teach him a lesson of abusing and competing, Dinesh caught hold of my brother Sandeep and Rahul who hold Serva (Bahhi of cot in his hand, hit on the head of my brother Sandeep Singh. I tried a lot to free him, but my brother became unconscious and fell down on the ground, then I made a lot of noise, Rahul and Dinesh took the serva in their hands and said that today you survived they will kill you in the future and ran away from the spot. Then I called my uncle's son Ajmer, who arranged a vehicle and brought my brother Sandeep to Kalpana Chawla Hospital, Karnal, due to the condition of my brother Sandeep being very bad, Doctor Sahib referred him to PGI Chandigarh, we have got our brother admitted in Arvind Hospital, Karnal, and who is now admitted in Arvind Hospital Karnal for treatment, who is unconscious, Rahul and Dinesh has given unjust injuries to my brother Sandeep, legal action should be taken against them, statements got recorded, heard and are correct. Sd/- Pardeep Kumar.”
3. When the case was nearing completion and listed for defence evidence, an application was moved for determining/ declaring the petitioner- Rahul as a minor. A reply thereof was filed. Based on the material on record, the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Karnal dismissed the said application vide order dated 13.08.2019.
4. The aforementioned order dated 13.08.2019 is under challenge in the present petition.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
6. It would be useful to extract the relevant paragraph of the impugned order dated 13.08.2019 and the same reads as under:- “4.By moving the present application, the applicant wants to declare himself as juvenile conflict in law and wants to send his case before the Principal Magistrate Juvenile Justice Board, Karnal. The case of the applicant/accused Rahul rests upon the school leaving certificate, wherein, his date of birth has been mentioned as 5.5.2000. As per the document on the file i.e. school leaving certificate, the accused has averred that his age is less than 18 years but his age is mentioned as 21 years by the police in the present case. There is the certificate of Kamlesh wife of Satpal who is mother of Rahul who has given in writing to the police wherein it is mentioned that the accused has not got prepared the Aadhar Card till today. There is nothing mentioned on the file why the accused Rahul has not got prepared his Aadhar Card from the concerned authority. Neither the birth certificate of
