Crl. Rev. No.617 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Rev. No.617 of 2011 Date of Decision: 23.05.2011 Sukhbir Singh ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ....Respondent CORAM : Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present:- Mr. K.S. Dhaliwal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sidharth Sarup, 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 against the order dated 07.03.2011 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal, whereby, the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order dated 24.12.2010 passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Assand, has been dismissed. The Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Assand, vide his order dated 24.12.2010 dismissed the application of the petitioner declaring him juvenile. The date of birth of the petitioner as mentioned in the school record is 02.02.1993. The petitioner relied upon the certificate of the Secondary Examination issued by the Board of School Education, Haryana (Annexure A-1). The trial Court, as well as, the Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal refused to rely upon the said school certificate on the ground that ; (a) the Birth Certificates of the other brothers were available but not of the petitioner. Crl. Rev. No.617 of 2011 2 (b) the birth certificate does not exist. (c) no record of the school where the admission was taken by the petitioner for the first time has been brought on record. (d) The mother of the petitioner had failed to mention the date of birth of the petitioner. Learned State counsel relied on the judgments passed by the two Courts below to oppose the present revision petition and submitted that the entry in the School Certificate is not admissible and cannot be relied upon to adjudicate the age of the accused. Heard. After having perused the judgments of the two Courts below, as well as, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that the order dated 07.03.2011 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal, and the order dated 24.12.2010 passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Assand, deserve to be set aside. 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, 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 the 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 appearances 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 Crl. Rev. No.617 of 2011 3 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 whereof; (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 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.” The certificate produced by the petitioner, as a proof of his date of birth, is the certificate of Secondary Examination issued by the Board of School Education, Haryana, which was exhibited as Annexure A-1 and is admittedly equivalent to the matriculation certificate. Moreover, the Secondary School Certificate is also supported by a marks sheet of Middle Standard Examination dated 29.03.2006 which was also issued by the Board of School Education, Haryana. Thus, both the certificates are of the Board Examination. As such, there is no reason to disregard them. Crl. Rev. No.617 of 2011 4 Refusing to accept the certificate on the ground that the birth certificate of other siblings exist but not of the petitioner, cannot be taken against the petitioner as he cannot be blamed for the lapse on the part of his parents who have not registered his date of birth. The ground that the mother has not mentioned the date of birth of her son in her statement is in itself not sufficient to ignore the certificate issued by the Board. Women from village background with minimum education or no education normally have least idea of the year of birth and are normally vague qua `dates' and `years' of the date of birth of the children especially if they have more than one child. It is not the case of the prosecution that the said certificate is not genuine or not issued by the Board. In fact, Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 has to be resorted to for determining the age of juvenile in the absence of the Birth certificate issued by the appropriate issuing authority under the Births and Deaths Registration Act, 1969. The two certificates produced by the petitioner satisfy the condition No.3(a)(i) of Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 for determining the age of an accused under the said Act. The date of birth in the said certificate is 02.02.1993. In view of the above, this Court arrives at the inescapable conclusion that the petitioner was under 18 years of age at the time of commission of offence and hence juvenile on the date of offence. For the reasons stated above, the revision petition filed by the petitioner is allowed and the impugned order dated 07.03.2011 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal, and the order dated 24.12.2010 passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Assand, are set aside. (NIRMALJIT KAUR) 23.05.2011 JUDGE gurpreet