Crl.Rev.No. 2425 of 2010 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl.Rev.No. 2425 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 6.9.2010 Sunil @ Solu ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Ashish Pannu, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** SABINA, J. This petition has been filed under Sections 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure challenging order dated 25.5.2009 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat, whereby the application filed by the petitioner for declaring him as juvenile was dismissed. The prosecution story, in brief, as noticed by the trial Court in para 2 of the impugned order, reads as under:- “Brief facts of prosecution case are that complainant Dharampal made statement to the police that he has three sons. His elder son namely Deepak aged about 18 Crl.Rev.No. 2425 of 2010 (O&M) 2 years was studying in 10+2 in S.D.School, Panipat. Kala son of Satbir Sharma, resident of Shahpur Taga was also studying with him. About 20 days ago, daughter of Subhash eloped with Kala son of Satbir and this matter was settled in Panchayat. Accused Subhash and Sonu had suspicion that his son Deepak helped Kala and they had also given beatings to his son. On 15.10.2008 at about 2.00 p.m. he received information that accused Sone had mowed down with his tractor Deepak at the bus stand of village Datauli. On receipt of this information, he along with his brother Tejpal reached at the spot and saw that his son Deepak was lying unconscious on the edge of the road. On the spot, Rajender son of Sher Singh Sharma and Vikram son of Chander were also present and they had disclosed that Deepak was coming towards his house after alighting from a three-wheeler. In the meantime, accused Sonu had come from Gannaur side with his tractor trolley and accused Subhash, Kamlesh and Anil were also sitting on the tractor. Accused Sonu hit Deepak by his tractor with intention to cause death. Thereafter, Deepak got admitted to the injuries. On this statement, a case under Sections 302/34 IPC was registered against the present applicant.” After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of Crl.Rev.No. 2425 of 2010 (O&M) 3 the opinion that the present petition deserves to be dismissed. Learned trial Court, while dismissing the application moved by the petitioner that he be declared as a juvenile, has held as under:- “The applicant relied upon regarding date of birth on a certificate issued by Board of School Education, Haryana when he appeared in his Matriculation examination and in the certificate Ex.A1, the date of birth is shown as 10.10.1992. This entry regarding his date of birth is proved by AW2 Sushil Kumar, Head Master, R.N.Tagore School. As per the record of the school, the applicant has joined R.N.Tagore School in 2007 as per Ex.A4 Admission and withdrawal Register. This entry was made on the basis of School Leaving Certificate mark A issued by Hindu Senior Secondary School, Garhi Keshri, Gannaur, Sonepat where the applicant studied from 19.4.2006 to 20.4.2007 and as per Ex.A-5, entry in Hindu Senior Secondary School is made by his father Subhash. But there is no evidence on the file that in the year 2006 while admitting the applicant in Hindu Senior Secondary School, Garhi Keshri, Gannaur, on which basis the date of birth of applicant is mentioned as 10.10.1992 and the applicant has not produced any document on which basis, this entry was made in Ex.A5. Crl.Rev.No. 2425 of 2010 (O&M) 4 Petitioner has not been able to show that the school register, which is the basis of the case set up by the petitioner, was being maintained under a particular statute. Since it is not a public record, therefore, it would not be evidence under Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act. Relevant entry has not been made by public servant in discharge of official duties. Held, accused was not juvenile and reference can be made to case law titled Gurwinder Singh @ Ginder vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2009 (1) RCR (Criminal) page 71 wherein our Hon'ble High Court has held that age of juvenile accused School record not relied upon. Father of accused had got recorded the age as per estimate. It is also held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Babloo Pasi vs. State of Jharkhand and another 2008 (4) RCR (Criminal) page 756 that 'proof of age.' Held, entry regarding the age of a person in a school register is of not much evidentiary value to prove the age of the person in the absence of the material on which the age was recorded.” The contention of learned counsel for applicant that the certificates Ex.D1 and Ex.D2 do not belong to his daughters and not related to his daughter, is devoid of merits, as it is clear from the record that the Crl.Rev.No. 2425 of 2010 (O&M) 5 father of the applicant namely Subhash son of Tara Chand has four children, two daughters and two sons and name of his wife is Kamlesh and it is clear from Ex.D2 the name of father is written as Subhash Giri, mother's name Kamlesh residents of Datauli and document Ex.A-7 produced by the applicant regarding matriculation certificate of Mukesh, elder daughter of Subhash son of Tara Chand in which surname Subhash Giri is mentioned as in Ex.D2. So, Ex.D1 and Ex.D2 is the date of birth certificate of Sheela younger daughter and Ex. D2 Mukesh elder daughter of Subhash Giri and Kamlesh resident of Datauli. It is clear from Ex.D2 that date of birth of Suman which is mentioned daughter of Subhash Giri and Kamlesh resident of village Datauli is 7.12.1987 and as per Ex.A7, detailed marks card of matriculation of Mukesh placed on file by applicant in rebuttal, elder daughter of Subhash Giri and Kamlesh is shown as 15.8.1989, so, it clearly shows that the date of birth of elder daughter was mentioned less as per Ex.D2 and AW1 Subhash, father of the applicant testified that his marriage was solemnized in the year 1988 while elder daughter's date of birth is 1987. So, the date of marriage of father of applicant is not possible in the year 1988. The second certificate placed Crl.Rev.No. 2425 of 2010 (O&M) 6 on file as Ex.D2 in which date of birth of Manvi daughter of Subhash and Kamlesh residents of Datauli is mentioned as 23.8.1992 and it is admitted fact by the father of the applicant that he has an elder daughter and thereafter, a son and then a daughter and thereafter, a son and then a daughter and thereafter a son. The present applicant is elder one to his younger daughter namely Sheela and date of birth of Manvi written is Ex.D1 is 23.8.1992 which belongs to Sheela younger daughter, so, it is not possible that the date of birth of applicant is 10.10.1992 as the present applicant is elder to Sheela. It is proved from the evidence that the father of the applicant has mentioned less date of birth of his elder daughter Mukesh in the school certificate, so, the date of birth of applicant as per school is not believable and as there is no proof brought on the file on which basis the date of birth is mentioned in the matriculation certificate. As the applicant has not produced any record prior to 2006 regarding his date of birth before getting admission in Hindu Senior Secondary School, Garhi Keshri.” The reasons given by the trial Court, while dismissing the application filed by the petitioner, are sound reasons. It has been noticed by the trial Court that as per the date of birth certificate of Manvi, daughter of Subhash Giri and Kamlesh, placed on record, Crl.Rev.No. 2425 of 2010 (O&M) 7 her date of birth is 23.8.1992. In these circumstances, the date of birth of the petitioner cannot be 10.10.1992. Although learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there were many persons of the name of Subhash Giri in the village but he has failed to contradict the fact that those persons of the name of Subhash Giri in the village have wife namely Kamlesh. In these circumstances, no ground for interference by this Court is made out. Accordingly, this revision petition is dismissed. SABINA) JUDGE September 06, 2010 anita