VED SINGH Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this revision, the petitioner has challenged the order of the Sessions Judge, Bhind dated 6.6.94 passed in Special Case No. 19194 whereby the learned Court below ignoring the date of birth of the applicant recorded in his school certificate, held him to be of more than 16 years of age and as such not to be a juvenile.

(2.) AGAINST the petitioner and other co -accused persons an offence has been registered by the police under sections 323, 342 and 376/34 I.P.C. and 3/12 of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1985. The case is pending before the Special Judge, Bhind. An application was moved by the petitioner before the trial Court that he was below the age of 16 years at the time of the incident and was a juvenile. An inquiry was held by the learned trial Court. The petitioner's father Amar Singh and Pandit Devi Ram were examined in the inquiry. The radiological examination was also held and the Radiologist opined that the age of the petitioner was between 18 -19 years. The petitioner's witnesses stated the date of birth of the petitioner was 20.5.79. According to his horoscope also his date of birth was 20.5.79. The petitioner has been a student and had qualified Purvya Madhyamik Examination in the year 1993. In the mark -sheet thereof, the date of birth of the petitioner was recorded as 20.5.79. The learned trial Court assuming that the date of birth in the school records is not correctly recorded many a times and on the basis of general appearance of the petitioner and his radiological examination, concluded that the age of the petitioner was not below 16 years and, therefore, his case could not be sent to the Juvenile Court.

(3.) IN almost similar circumstances, the Supreme Court in Bhoop Ram v. State of U.P. [(1989 SCC (Cr.)] 486, found: