(1 of 3)

[CRLMP-247/2021]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

JODHPUR

S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 247/2021

Durga Ram S/o Sh. Tulchha Ram, Aged About 48 Years, R/o

Village Bhamatsar, Tehsil Nokha District Bikaner.

----Petitioner

Versus

1.

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

2.

Amra Ram S/o Sh. Chetan Ram, R/o Village Bhamatsar,

Teh. Nokha Dist. Bikaner. (At Present Lodged At

Observation Home, Bikaner).

----Respondents

Connected With

S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 743/2020

Amraram S/o Shri Chetanram, Aged About 17 Years, Bhamatsar,

Tehsil Nokha, District Bikaner Minor Through Natural Guardian

Father Chetanram. (At Present Juvenile Home Bikaner).

----Petitioner

Versus

1.

State, Through P.p.

2.

Miss Chandrakala D/o Shri Durgaram, Aged About 14

Years, By Caste Meghwal, R/o Bhamatsar, Tehsil Nokha,

District Bikaner Through Natural Guardian Father

Durgaram.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s)

:

Mr. RS Choudhary

For Respondent(s)

:

Mr. Gaurav Singh, PP

Mr. Sunil Vishnoi, for the complainant

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

Order

25/01/2021

CRLMP No.247/2021 (Durga Ram Vs. State & Anr.) :

1.

In wake of onslaught of COVID-19, abundant caution is being

taken while hearing the matters in Court.

(2 of 3)

[CRLMP-247/2021]

2.

Mr. RS Choudhary, counsel for the petitioner, has drawn

attention of this Court towards certificate issued by Board of

Secondary Education, Rajasthan on 08.06.2017 for respondent

no.2, as per which, the date of birth of Amra Ram is 20.02.2001.

3.

Counsel for the petitioner submits that in accordance with

Section 94 of Juvenile Justice Act as well as the precedent laws

laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court, Board certificate is the first and

foremost document regarding proof of age, thus, ought not to be

disbelieved.

4.

Learned Public Prosecutor submits that trial shall go strictly

in accordance with looking to age of accused on the date of

incident.

Learned Public Prosecutor further submitted that without

ascertaining truthfulness of Board certificate, the court below

erred in believing date of birth as 20.02.2003, which is not

permissible in the eye of law.

5.

In light of the aforesaid submissions and observation, this

misc. petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 06.10.2020

passed by learned Special Judge, POCSO Act Cases, Bikaner is

quash and set aside. The case is remanded back to the same

court for passing orders afresh while taking date of birth for

respondent no.2 as 20.02.2001 in accordance with the Certificate

of Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan issued on

08.06.2017, as verified by the Investigating Officer.

CRLR No.743/2020 (Amraram Vs. State)

1.

In wake of onslaught of COVID-19, abundant caution is being

taken while hearing the matters in Court.

(3 of 3)

[CRLMP-247/2021]

2.

This revision petition has been filed against refusal of

so-called juvenile Amra Ram on bail by the courts below.

3.

In view of detailed order passed hereinabove, this Court

concludes that petitioner-Amra Ram (so-called juvenile) on the

date of incident i.e. 05.9.2020 was major, as is evident from

certificate issued on 08.06.2017 by Board of Secondary Education,

Rajasthan, as per which, date of birth of Amra Ram is

20.02.2001). Further, in accordance with Section 94 of Juvenile

Justice Act as well as the precedent laws laid down by Hon’ble

Apex Court, Board certificate is the first and foremost document

regarding proof of age.

4.

In view thereof, this revision petition is dismissed as having

become infructuous. However, the trial court is directed to

proceed with the trial strictly in accordance with law by treating

Arma Ram as major.

It is made clear that the petitioner-Amra Ram shall be at

liberty to pursue legal remadies avaialble to him under the law as

major.

(DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J.

330-331-Nirmala/Sanjay/-