Crl. Rev. No.3219 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Rev. No.3219 of 2010 Date of Decision: 24.01.2011 Vinod ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM : Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present:- Mr. Ashit Malik, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Amit Rana, D.A.G., Haryana for the respondent-State. ***** 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. This is a revision petition against the order dated 14.10.2010 filed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat. FIR No.432 dated 07.12.2008 under Section 302 IPC was registered against the present petitioner. The police investigated the case and filed challan under Section 302 IPC against the present petitioner. The petitioner filed an application through his mother Smt. Kaushalya Devi before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat for sending the case for trial before the Juvenile Justice Board, Sonepat on the ground that he was born on 03.03.1991 and that he was juvenile on the date of alleged occurrence i.e. 07.12.2008. The said application was dismissed. The present revision petition has been filed challenging the said order on the Crl. Rev. No.3219 of 2010 2 ground that the Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat while conducting the enquiry failed to consider Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, wherein, procedure for determination of the age has been prescribed. Heard. 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 or 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 appearance 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 thereof; (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 Crl. Rev. No.3219 of 2010 3 from a duly constituted Medical 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 (b) shall be the conclusive proof of the age as regards such child or the juvenile in conflict with law.” Admittedly, the matriculation certificate was not available. As such, the petitioner is stated to have produced the School Leaving Certificate. It was contended that the said School Leaving Certificate should have been taken into consideration which was the convincing and reliable evidence and was in tune with Rule 12(3)(a)(ii) of the Juvenile Justice Rules, 2007. Reliance was placed on the judgment of Hon’ble the Apex Court rendered in the case titled as Ram Suresh Singh vs. Prabhat Singh Alias Chhotu Singh reported as 2010(1) RCR(Criminal) 244 to substantiate his argument. The argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioner has no merit, in as much as, the School Leaving Certificate Ex.A1 and certified copy of certificate issued by Head Master, Government Primary School, Dhikana No.2 as Ex.A2 was disbelieved. The same has been disbelieved on the ground that (a) there is absence of material, on the basis of which, the age was recorded in Exhibit A-1 and A-2, which is the transfer certificate. (b) Smt. Kaushalya Devi, mother of the accused petitioner was examined. She has four children. She Crl. Rev. No.3219 of 2010 4 could not tell the date of birth of either of her four children. In fact, she deposed that the present accused was her eldest son. (c) Kapil Arya, the witness who was examined in order to prove Exhibit A1 deposed that he has not verified the date of birth of Vinod from the Junior High Scholl, Dhikana, Bhagpat. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Ram Suresh Singh (supra) has specifically held in para 16 that “ an entry in a school register may not be a public document and, thus, must be proved in accordance with law, as has been held by this Court in the case of Birad Mal Singhvi (supra).” The said document could not be proved. As such, the trial Court rightly did not take the same into consideration for determining the age of the accused/petitioner-Vinod. On the other hand, the documents relied on by the State i.e Pariwar Register (R1) and Exhibit RW1/A, both were showing different years of birth of accused Vinod i.e 1987 and 1991, respectively. There was an overwriting in the document Ex.RW1/A. As such, the same too, could not be relied upon. Finally, the reliance has been placed on the driving licence Exhibit RW3/A, which shows the date of birth of accused Vinod as 03.03.1988. The said licence was duly proved by the Clerk, Licencing Authority, Baghpat (UP) while appearing as RW-3. The said licence was issued on 10.10.2006 and was renewed on 01.08.2008. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, vehemently, submitted that the driving licence could not have been taken into consideration for determining the age as the same is not in keeping with the spirit of Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007. No doubt, Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 does not make reference to a driving licence as Crl. Rev. No.3219 of 2010 5 one of the document which should be taken into consideration for determining the age. However, the said Rule pertains to the question when the age of the juvenile is involved. A juvenile is not supposed to have a driving licence. A driving licence is not supposed to be issued to a juvenile by a State. As such, the inclusion of the document “driving licence” in the said Rule, which is specifically incorporated for the purpose of determining the age of the juvenile, does not arise. The very fact that a person possesses a driving licence means that he is not a juvenile by any stretch of imagination. The driving licence is a public document. The same is issued by the State on the basis of documents required to be produced as proof of the age. The same being a public document cannot be ignored, especially when, it is not disputed that the same is genuine and issued by a proper authority and has not been challenged. The date of birth of the petitioner entered in the driving licence is 03.03.1988. The petitioner is, therefore, not a juvenile. The petition is, therefore, totally misconceived and moved only for the purpose of deriving undue benefit entitled to a juvenile. Thus, there is no ground to interfere in the well reasoned order dated 14.10.2010 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat, vide which, the application on behalf of the petitioner to determine his age in order to declare him a juvenile was dismissed. The present petition is, accordingly, dismissed. (NIRMALJIT KAUR) 24.01.2011 JUDGE gurpreet