MR. JUSTICE S.RAVINDRA BHAT - (1.) CRL.A. 483/2011 & Crl. M. (Bail) 638/2011 in Crl. A. 483/2011 The appellant impugns a judgment and order of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge dated 21.03.2011 in SC No. 161/2008. He, together with the co-accused, was arraigned for having committed the offences punishable under Sections 302/307/427/429/120-B IPC, and Sections 3/181 of the Motor Vehicles Act. He also stood trial for committing the offences punishable under Sections 4 and 5(1) together with Section 12 of the Delhi Agricultural Cattle Preservation Act. The appellant was convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 307/302 IPC as well as 427 IPC. Besides, they were also convicted under the Delhi Agricultural Cattle Preservation Act.
(2.) THIS Court had admitted the appeal on 21.04.2011. On the same day, the Court had directed an enquiry as to the appellant's true age as on the date of incident, i.e. 14.05.2008. The appellant had contended that he was a juvenile within the meaning of the expression under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (hereafter called "the Juvenile Justice Act"). He contended that his date of birth is 18.02.1995, and has relied upon a School Leaving Certificate dated 12.12.2010 of the UPPS Sahaspur, District Bijnaur. The Court had directed an inquiry in terms of Section 7A of the Juvenile Justice Act on the same date, i.e. 21.04.2011. The Court had nominated the ASJ to consider the relevant materials and furnish a report to the Court. Learned ASJ, in compliance with this Court's directions, furnished his report. The material part of the report dated 11.07.2011 reads as follows: "XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX I find nothing on record to dispute these findings returned by the aforesaid medical board. The combined opinion of all the members of the Board is that the age of the convict, as on the date of his examination by the Board, is between 20 to 22 years. Therefore, the age of the convict on the date of the incident would be between 17 to 19 years. As per ratio of various judgments of the High Court, on the estimated age of the convict opined by the medical board is to be read to the benefit of the convict. Therefore, the lower limit of the age of the convict as opined by the medical board is to be considered. In doing so, it becomes manifest that the age of the convict, as on the date of the incident, was less than 18 years and hence he was a juvenile. XXXXXX XXXXXXX XXXXXX" Learned ASJ considered the report of the Medical Board under the chairmanship of Dr. Sunil Kakkar, HOD of Radiology Department of the Deen Dayal Upadhyay Hospital. He also took into consideration the deposition of CW-1, Dr. M.P. Chaurasia, the said chairperson of the Medical Board and CW-2, Dr. Sameer Dhari. Similarly, the deposition of Dr. Pankaj Agarwal, CW-3 was also considered. The cumulative effect of the depositions of these witnesses was that the age of the convict was between 20-22 years on the date he was examined by them. The incident, as noted previously, occurred on 14.05.2008. The medical witnesses also supported the testimony on the basis of their observations made during the Ossification or the Bone-Age Test conducted for this purpose.
(3.) THE appellant, in addition to the report of the learned ASJ also places reliance on the status report filed by the concerned police station, i.e. Police Station Kapashera dated 12.05.2011 (wrongly shown to be 12.05.2010). THE material report reads as follows: "XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX During the inquiry, the brother of Appellant Mohd. Kalim Ahamed s/o Mohd. Hanif informed that his brother (Appellant) Mohd. Azim got admission in first class at Govt. Primary School, Sahaspur, Bijnor, UP. IO verified the date of birth of Appellant Mohd. Azim from above said school and received the certified copies of 1. School admission register pages 2. School leaving Certificate 3. Date of birth certificate issued by Principal. As per the school record the date of birth of appellant is 18.02.1995. THE certified copies of age proof are attached herewith. XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX" We have considered the report of the learned ASJ ? dated 11.07.2011 as well as the status report and the documents annexed with it, i.e. certified copy of the School Leaving Certificate, which mentions the appellant's date of birth to be 18.02.1995. The other preliminary evidence produced in support of the appellant's submission of being a juvenile on the date of the incident include a copy of the School Admission Register and the Date of Birth Certificate issued by the Principal. These have been verified by the concerned police authorities.;