- (1.) D. C. Srivastava, J. The prayer in this petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is for quashing the order, dated 29th June, 1995 passed by the Special Judge, Jaunpur in S. T. No. 63 of 1994 (State v. Shobh Nath and others) reject ing the application of the petitioner for separate trial in Juvenile Court.
(2.) THE brief facts are that the petitioner Om Prakash Sharma, inter alia, was com mitted to the Court of Sessions in Case Crime No. 180 of 1993 u/s. 323, 325 and 504 I. P. C. in respect of an incident which took place on 15th July, 1993. It is said that on the date of incident the petitioner was aged about 14 years, 11 months and 11 days was, therefore, juvenile being below 16 years on the date of incident. Consequently he could not be tried with other accused and his ap plication for separate trial by juvenile Court was wrongly rejected by the Special Judge in violation of the provisions of S. 24 of Juvenile Justice Act, 1986. It is further sub mitted that in the High School Certificate of the petitioner (Annexure-3) his date of birth is recorded as 5-8-1978, which was ignored by the Court below and computed from this date, the petitioner was below 16 years of age on the date of incident. The petition has been contested on the ground that it is nothing out a move to delay the disposal of the trial. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed great reliance upon the copy of High School Certificate of the petitioner (Annexure 3) in which the date of birth of the petitioner is recorded as 5. 8. 1978. It was contended that since the incident took place on 15th July, 1993 the petitioner was a juvenile, namely, below 16 years of age on the date of incident and this material evidence was ignored by the learned Special Judge and he passed the impugned order mainly on the strength of his observation 'from the appearance of the petitioner', which is an illegal approach.
(3.) A juvenile is defined under Section 2 (b) of Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 to mean a boy who has not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who has not attained the age of eighteen years. Thus according to this Section a juvenile is a boy who has not attained the age of sixteen years. For determining the age of the petitioner implicit reliance should not have been placed upon the date of birth recorded in the High School Certificate (Annexure 3 ). Learned Counsel for the petitioner has, however, relied upon the pronouncement of the Supreme Court in Bhoop Ram v. State of U. P. [a. Cr. R. 276 : 1989 JIC 530 (SC)] wherein it was laid down that the certificate of age recorded in the school certificate should not be brushed aside merely on the surmise that it is not unusual for parents to understate the age of their children for securing benefits to the children in their future. It was further ob served in this case that no material was placed on the record to show that School Certificate was not correct. This case to my mind is distinguishable on the facts of this case. The question of age came for con sideration before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaunpur, who through his order dated 27th Oct. , 93 (Annexure-2) con sidered various materials on record to dis credit the recorded entry in the High School Certificate. At page 4 of the this Annexure, it is mentioned that School records were also summoned and in one of the School Registers the date of birth of the petitioner was recorded as 5. 8. 1975 but in the charac ter register it was recorded as 5. 8. 1978. The medico-legal report dated 15th July, 1993 was also considered by the learned Magistrate. The Kutumb Register was also examined, which was maintained by the Gaon Sabha concerned. In the medical opinion the age of the petitioner was as sessed to be about 18 years. In the Kutumb Register the date of birth of the petitioner was recorded as 10. 6. 75. Considering these materials the learned Magistrate decided that the age of the petitioner was 18 years. From the appearance also the learned Magistrate observed that the petitioner was above 16 years of age. This order was not challenged in revision. The learned Special Judge also considered the above fact and material on record and concluded that the petitioner on the date of incident was not juvenile, rather he was more than 18 years of age. It is, therefore, not a case where the High School Certificate was ignored by the learned Magistrate or by the learned Special Judge. There were materials on record to indicate that different date of birth was recorded in different registers to suit the convenience of the petitioner. In these cir cumstances determination of age by the learned Special Judge cannot be said to be illegal.;