Crl.Revision No.1779 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl.Rev.No.1779 of 2009 Date of decision: 12.11.2009 Deepak ... Petitioner versus State of Punjab ... Respondent CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JORA SINGH. Present: Mr.Kuldeep Sanwal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.P.S.Sidhu, Addl.AG, Punjab. ... JORA SINGH, J. Deepak filed this revision to impugn the order dated 22.5.2009 rendered by Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, by which request of the petitioner to declare him a juvenile was rejected. FIR No.168 dated 27.12.2007 under Section 302 IPC was registered against the petitioner. At the time of framing of the charge, the petitioner stated that he is a juvenile. Enquiry may be held. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that there was ossification test and as per the report, petitioner was found to be 17 years of age. Age is variable by two years on both sides. When there are two views, then the view favourable to the accused is to be accepted. In support of this contention, learned counsel relied upon 2008(4) RCR (Crl.) 756, Babloo Pasi vs. State of Jharkhand and another, wherein it was held that birth certificate not available-Other evidence produced to prove age- If two views may be possible on the same evidence, the Court should lean in favour of holding the accused to be a juvenile in borderline cases. Crl.Revision No.1779 of 2009 2 Learned State counsel argued that request of the petitioner was rightly rejected because the petitioner failed to produce school leaving certificate. According to the petitioner, his date of birth is 8.1.1991, but, in fact, date of birth of the petitioner is 8.1.1989. In support of this contention, learned State counsel produced photocopy of school leaving certificate of the petitioner. Same is taken on record. As per certificate, date of birth of the petitioner is 8.1.1989. During enquiry, the petitioner produced his mother, who stated that the petitioner is a juvenile. Petitioner was directed to appear before the Civil Surgeon for conducting his ossification test. Allegation of the petitioner is that as per ossification test, coupled with the statement of his mother, his date of birth is 8.1.1991. So, he is a juvenile. No doubt, the petitioner was directed to appear before the Civil Surgeon for conducting his ossification test and as per report, the petitioner was found to be 17 years of age, which was variable by two years. As per the authority cited by learned counsel for the petitioner, when two views are possible, then the view favourable to the accused is to be accepted, but in the present case, there is a school leaving certificate. As per certificate, date of birth of the petitioner is 8.1.1989. Against the certificate, no documentary proof by the petitioner. No allegation of the petitioner that he had not studied upto 8th standard. When there is documentary proof regarding the age, i.e., school leaving certificate, then report of the Doctor while conducting ossification test, carries little weight because as per ossification test, age can vary by two years on either side. Medical evidence is to be taken into consideration when there is no other evidence on the file. In 2008(4) RCR (Crl.) 1, Sannaila Subba Rani and others vs. State Crl.Revision No.1779 of 2009 3 of AP, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that school certificate is a legal document and has evidentiary value and is to be given weightage. On the other hand, there is only expert opinion, i.e., report of the Doctor. School leaving certificate is to be given preference. Certificate was proved by Gian Chand, who brought admission and withdrawal register of the school. Witness appearing on behalf of the petitioner also admitted that the petitioner was admitted in the 8th class and had left the school in the year 2002. Secondly, at the time of admission, date of birth was got recorded as 8.1.1989. In case date of birth was wrongly recorded, then why no application for correction of date till date. In view of the school leaving certificate, trial Court rightly opined that the petitioner is not a juvenile. Date of birth of the petitioner is 8.1.1989. At the time of commission of offence, the petitioner was more than 18 years' old. In view of all discussed above, petition being without merit is dismissed. 12.11.2009 ( JORA SINGH ) pk JUDGE