SHRI KANT TRIPATHI,J. - (1.) BY this revision under section 53 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2000, (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 2000"), the revisionist Amar Singh has assailed the order dated 27.4.2010 rendered by Special Judge (E.C. Act) Gonda in Sessions Trial No. 183 of 1999, State Vs. Shiv Shankar Tiwari and others, whereby the learned Special Judge refused to declare the revisionist as a juvenile.
(2.) HEARD Mr. R.P. Mishra the learned counsel for the revisionist, Mr. M.K. Mishra for the respondent no.2 and the learned AGA for the respondent no.1 and perused the record. It appears that in the aforesaid Sessions Trial, the revisionist Amar Singh is an accused under section 147, 148, 149, 307 and 302 IPC. The incident relating to the case took place on 13.5.1998. The revisionist Amar Singh claimed himself as a Juvenile and pleaded that his date of birth per the school record was 8.6.1981. The learned Special Judge held an inquiry under section 7-A of the Act of 2000 and arrived at the conclusion that the revisionist was more than 18 years on the date of the occurrence. During the inquiry, the revisionist's father CW-1 Gajendra Bahadur Singh appeared as a witness in support of the plea of juvenility of the revisionist. One Sri O.S. Jackson, a clerk in the Chambers Memorial Girls School, Gonda also appeared as a witness along with the original school register.
(3.) THE learned Special Judge disbelieved the school record on the ground that the revisionist's father stated that the revisionist was admitted in the school in the year 1981 and was not in a position to tell as to what was the exact age of the revisionist at the time of his admission in the school. The learned Special Judge while arriving at the aforesaid conclusion, has also placed reliance on Pratap Singh Vs. State of Jharkhand 2005 (2) Criminal Court Cases 334 in which the Apex Court has held that entry in the school record is relevant and admissible but the entry regarding the age of a person in a school register is of not much evidenciary value in the absence of the material on which the age was recorded. The learned Special Judge further placed reliance on Birad Mal Singhavi Vs. Anand Purohit AIR 1988 SC 1376 in which too a similar principle has been propounded.;