Criminal Revision No. 1200 of 2009 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 1200 of 2009 Date of decision: August 04, 2009 Shivani alias Pooja @ Poonam .. Petitioner v. State of Haryana .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. R. S. Mamli, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Ritu Punj, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana. Mr. S. K. Garg Narwana, Advocate for the complainant. Rajesh Bindal J. The petitioner is impugning the orders passed by the learned courts below, whereby the application to declare her a juvenile, was dismissed. Briefly, the facts are that the petitioner is a co-accused in FIR No. 89 dated 9.3.2008, registered under Sections 364-A, 377, 201, 420, 411 read with Section 34 IPC and 25 of the Arms Act. After registration of the FIR, application was filed by the petitioner before the learned trial court for declaring her as a juvenile claiming that her date of birth is 6.3.1991. It was also mentioned that her name is Shivani alias Pooja. The learned trial court did not find substance in the claim made by the petitioner on the basis of material placed on record. The claim having been rejected, the petitioner preferred appeal before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, which met with the same fate. This is how the petitioner is before this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the date of birth of the petitioner is 6.3.1991 and the date of occurrence is 6.3.2008 and on the date of occurrence, she was less than 18 years of age. To substantiate the plea, it was submitted that the statement of father of the petitioner, namely, Lakhi Ram was the best piece of evidence, considering the fact that the petitioner neither went to school nor her birth was got registered with the Municipal Committee. Reliance was sought to be placed upon ration card (Annexure P4) where the age of one of the daughters, namely, Poonam was shown to be 15 years and the same was issued on 14.7.2005. It was submitted that Lakhi Ram had one son and two daughters and Criminal Revision No. 1200 of 2009 [2] the petitioner was the youngest one. He further submitted that the ossification test of the petitioner was conducted on 19.9.2008 and as per the report, the petitioner was found to be about 18 years of age, meaning thereby that on the date of occurrence she was less than 18 years. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that in the ration card, sought to be relied upon by the petitioner, name of none of the daughters is mentioned as Shivani @ Pooja, as names of two daughters mentioned therein are Banita and Poonam. In the ration card, exact age is never mentioned. Even if it is counted still, it would be 18 years when the offence was committed. If the contention of the petitioner is to be accepted that she was known by another name – Poonam, it can be Banita also, who was admittedly 22 years of age even as per the ration card. Besides that, it is only the oral statement of the father of the petitioner or neighbour and the same are also contradictory and cannot be relied upon to declare the petitioner a juvenile. Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the ration card cannot be taken to be a proof for age. He further submitted that the testimony of Lakhi Ram cannot be relied upon, as while appearing in the court as AW2, he stated his age as 50 years, whereas in the ration card, which was prepared on 14.7.2005, his age is shown as 61 years. The petitioner is a member of gang. She has even tattooed “Shunty”, the name of other co-accused, on her arm. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. To substantiate the claim, all what the petitioner has produced on record in the form of evidence is copy of the ration card and oral statements of her father and a neighbour. Besides this, reliance is sought to be placed on the report of the ossification test of the petitioner, which was onducted on 19.9.2008. It is not disputed that there is neither any entry of birth of the petitioner with the municipal authority nor she had ever attended the school. It is in the light of this material that this court has to form an opinion regarding the age of the petitioner. Both the courts below finding substantial variations/contradictions in the evidence led rejected the claim of the petitioner. In the oral statement of AW2- Lakhi Ram, it was stated that the date of birth of the petitioner, his daughter, was 6.3.1991. To the similar effect was the statement of AW1- Dharmender, who is stated to be their neighbour. Lakhi Ram claimed that the petitioner was his younger daughter. Lakhi Ram further stated that out of his three children, Banita is the elder daughter, after that is his son-Sunil and then the petitioner. However, this statement is in contradiction with the facts mentioned in the ration card, which though has not been proved on record, where Sunil, the son, has been shown to be the eldest one Criminal Revision No. 1200 of 2009 [3] followed by Banita and Poonam. Lakhi Ram neither produced any material on record nor even stated in his oral statement about the date of birth or age of his other children. As far as claim of the petitioner is concerned, even after considering his alternate name, the same does not find mention in the ration card, as it contains names of Banita and Poonam. Argument was sought to be raised that in fact petitioner- Shivani alias Pooja is also known as Poonam. If this was the claim, nothing prevented the petitioner at the initial stage to have mentioned her name as “alias Poonam” as well. In these circumstances, the contention of the respondents also carries weight to the effect that in fact, the petitioner can be the elder daughter, namely, Banita. Even the ossification test of the petitioner also suggests that she was 18 years of age. Had there been other evidence which could support the case of the petitioner to some extent, this court would have taken the view which is favourable to the petitioner giving her benefit of doubt, but that is not so. For the reasons mentioned above, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned orders passed by the learned courts below. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge August 04, 2009 mk