IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM M-3317 of 2010 Date of Decision:7.4.2010 Vinod and others .... Petitioners Versus State of Haryana .... Respondent CORAM: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present: Mr. U.K. Agnohotri, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. K.S. Pannu, D.A.G. Punjab. Mr. Vivek Khatri, Advocate for the complainant. **** 1.Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? NIRMALJIT KAUR, J.(Oral) The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for setting aside order dated 12.11.2009 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jind, vide which the application praying for direction to conduct ossification test of prosecutrix-Seema was dismissed. The attention of this Court is invited to the operative part of order dated 12.11.2009. The same reads as under:` “ In any case if the applicants/accused want to bring on file that prosecutrix is major and not a minor and date of birth recorded in school leaving certificate is incorrect, they can lead their evidence at the appropriate time. At this stage when the prosecution has place on file school leaving certificate and proved the same by examine PW9 Puran Chand Head Teacher, no directions can given for ossification of the prosecutrix. Moreover, no exact age of the prosecutrix can be ascertained by ossification test. Application in hand is devoid of merit and the same is hereby dismissed.” After dismissing the application vide order dated 12.11.2009, the petitioners have led their defence evidence. As per the statement of DW- 3-Ramphal, who is clerk in the office of Civil Surgeon, Jind, the name of the prosecutrix is not mentioned in the birth register. DW-5-Mange Ram, who is Chowkidar of the village, has also made his statement to the same CRM M-3317 of 2010 -2- effect whereas DW-1-Prem Singh, Principal, Government Senior Secondary School, Ritoli, has stated that the date of birth entry of Seema in the school certificate is not supported by an affidavit by the parents or any other document. Admittedly, the certificate does have evidentiary value but is still not conclusive proof. It is further stated that as per the statement of DW-3, the date of birth of Sunita, who is younger sister of the prosecutrix, is 21.07.1993. Thus, it appears that the petitioners have led evidence disputing the date of birth of the prosecutrix in the school leaving certificate. In view of the evidence led by the petitioners in their defence, order dated 12.11.2009 is set aside with liberty to the petitioners to move fresh application for ossification test of prosecutrix-Seema before the trial Court. Thereafter, the concerned Court shall decide the application by passing fresh order in accordance with law. However, nothing said herein shall have any bearing on the merits of the case or the decision of the application to be moved by the petitioners. Disposed of accordingly. 7.4.2010 ( NIRMALJIT KAUR ) rajeev JUDGE