IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No. 148 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: March 09, 2011 Surat Singh …Petitioner Versus Dharmender and others. … Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH 1. Whether reporters of local news papers may be Allowed to see judgment? 2. To be referred to reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr. J.P. Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Alok Singh, J. (Oral) Present petition is filed challenging the order dated 18.01.2011 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Narnaul, a well as, order dated 24.12.2010 passed by learned Principal Magistrate Juvenile Justice Board, Narnaul, declaring Naveen and Dharmender as juvenile on the basis of matriculation certificates. The brief facts of the present case are that respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are accused in FIR No. 450 dated 08.12.2010, under Sections 363/366-A IPC, Police Station Mahendergarh, District Mahendergarh. It is alleged in the FIR that Pooja, student of 10th class at DAV School, CRR 148 of 2011 Mahendergarh, went to the School in the morning of 08.12.2010. During the interval of DAV School, Naveen son of Surender, resident of Village Bawal and Dharmender son of Vijay Singh, resident of Village Sehlang have taken Pooja to some place. Both the accused – respondent Nos. 1 and 2 claimed themselves to be juvenile. Matriculation certificates of both the accused were produced before the Principal Magistrate Juvenile Justice Board, Narnaul. Vijay Kumar son of Mahavir Parshad, father of the accused – Dharmender, was examined on oath; Amar Singh, grandfather of Naveen, was also examined on oath. As per the matriculation certificate of Naveen-accused, his date of birth is 28.02.1993, which was duly supported by the statement on oath recorded by his grandfather Amar Singh. Date of birth of Dharmender –accused is 15.02.1994 as per matriculation certificate produced before the Principal Magistrate Juvenile Justice Board which was duly supported by the statement on oath recorded by his father Vijay Kumar. Revisionist-complainant has produced two birth certificates before the Principal Magistrate Juvenile Justice Board contending that on the basis of birth certificate, date of birth of Naveen-accused is 29.01.1992; while date of birth of Dharmender @ Karampal -accused is 27.04.1992, hence, both were major on the date of incident. Learned Principal Magistrate Juvenile Justice Board, as well as, Sessions Judge, Narnaul, have placed 2 CRR 148 of 2011 reliance on the matriculation certificates and statements on oath of the father and grandfather of the accused and have found that both the accused – respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are juvenile. Feeling aggrieved, present revision petition is filed by the complainant. Learned counsel for the revisionist-complainant has vehemently argued that although date of birth shows in the matriculation certificate of Naveen is 28.02.1993, however, as per the birth certificate duly maintained, his date of birth is 29.01.1992, therefore, Naveen-accused cannot be held to be juvenile on the date of incident i.e. 08.12.2010. Learned counsel further argued that nick name Dharmender is Karampal and as per birth certificate, his date of birth is 27.04.1992 and his date of birth is wrongly recorded in the matriculation certificate as 15.02.1994. Undisputedly, as per the matriculation certificate, date of birth of accused Naveen is 28.02.1993. Grandfather of the Naveen-accused Amar Singh was examined on oath and he has specifically stated while appearing in the witness box that his grandson Naveen was born on 28.02.1993. Likewise, matriculation certificate of Dharmender-accused shows date of birth of Dharmender is 15.02.1994. Father of Dharmender, Sh. Vijay Kumar also appeared in the witness box and has deposed that date of birth of his son Dharmender is 15.02.1994. 3 CRR 148 of 2011 Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 reads as under:- 12. Procedure to be followed in determination of age – (1) In every case concerning a child or a juvenile in conflict with law, the Court or the Board, as the case may be, the Committee referred to in rule 19 of these rules shall determine the age of such juvenile or child or a juvenile in conflict with law within a period of thirty days from the date of making of the application for that purpose. (2) The Court or the Board or, as the case may be, the Committee shall decide the juvenility or otherwise of the juvenile or the child or, as the case may be, the juvenile in conflict with law, prima facie, on the basis of physical appearances or documents, if available, and send him to the observation home or in jail. (3) In every case concerning a child or juvenile in conflict with law, the age determination inquiry shall be conducted by the Court or the Board or, as the case may be, the Committee by seeking evidence by obtaining – (a)(i) the matriculation or equivalent certificates, if available; and in the absence whereof; (ii) the date of birth certificate from the school (other than a play school) first attended; and in the absence whereof; (iii) the birth certificate given by a Corporation or a Municipal Authority or a Panchayat; (b) and only in the absence of either (i), (ii) or (iii) of clause (a) above, the medical opinion will be sought from a duly constituted Medical 4 CRR 148 of 2011 Board, which will declare the age of the juvenile or child. In case exact assessment of the age cannot be done, the Court or the Board or, as the case may be, the Committee, for the reasons to be recorded by them, may, if considered necessary, give benefit to the child or juvenile by considering his/her age on lower side within the margin of one year, And, while passing orders in such case shall, after taking into consideration such evidence as may be available, or the medical opinion, as the case may be, record a finding in respect of his age and either of the evidence specified in any of the clauses (a)(i), (ii), (iii) or in the absence whereof, clause (d) shall be the conclusive proof of the age as regards such child or the juvenile in conflict with law. (4) If the age of a juvenile or child or the juvenile in conflict with law is found to be below 18 years on the date of offence, on the basis of any of the conclusive proof specified in sub-rule (3), the Court or the Board or, as the case may be, the Committee shall in writing pass an order stating the age and declaring the status of juvenility or otherwise, for the purpose of the Act and these rules and a copy of the order shall be given to such juvenile or the person concerned. (5) Save and except where, further inquiry or otherwise is required, inter alia, in terms of Section 7-A, Section 64 of the Act and these rules, no further inquiry shall be conducted by the Court or the Board after examining and obtaining the certificate or any other documentary proof referred to in sub-rule (3) of this rule. 5 CRR 148 of 2011 (6) The provisions contained in this rule shall also apply to those disposed off cases, where the status of juvenility has not been determined in accordance with provisions contained in sub-rule (3) and the Act, requiring dispensation of the sentence under the Act for passing appropriate order in the interest of the juvenile in conflict with law.” From the perusal of the rule 12, it is, thus, clear that question of juvenile shall be decided first of all on the basis of the matriculation certificate and in the absence of matriculation certificate, on the basis of school certificate (other then play school) and in the absence of the school certificate, on the basis of birth certificate and in the absence of matriculation certificate or school certificate or birth certificate, on the basis of medical opinion. Since, in the present case, matriculation certificates were produced and father and grandfather of the accused were examined on oath, who have also supported the date of birth mentioned in the matriculation certificates and prosecution did not suspect the genuineness of the matriculation certificates, therefore, view taken by both the Courts below seems to be justified and in accordance with law. No interference is called for. Dismissed. March 09, 2011 ( Alok Singh ) vkd Judge 6