S.N.H.Zaidi - (1.) THIS is a revision against the judgment and order dated 23.11.2005 passed by the Sessions Judge, Saharanpur in Criminal Misc. Case No. 184/2005, Mohd. Amjad v. State, rejecting the application of the revisionist of declaring him juvenile.
(2.) THE facts which gave rise to this revision, in brief, are that a Case Crime No. 5 of 2005, under Section 376, I.P.C. of Police Station Chilkana, District Saharanpur was registered against the revisionist. THE accused-revisionist moved an application before the Sessions Judge for declaring him as juvenile on the ground that he is aged only 16 years. THE learned Sessions Judge after making an inquiry and hearing the accused and the D.G.C. (Criminal) rejected the application by the impugned order. Feeling aggrieved with the order the accused has filed this revision. Despite personal service of the notice of revision no objection/affidavit has been filed either by the State or by O.P. No. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the revisionist and opposite party No. 2 and the learned A.G.A., for the State and perused the record of the matter.
(3.) THE contention of the learned counsel for the revisionist is that the learned lower court has committed error in not relying upon the school leaving certificate in determining the age of the revisionist. It has also been contended that the age of the revisionist is to be taken into consideration vis-a-vis the date of alleged incident. According to the learned counsel, the alleged incident of the offence of Section 376, I.P.C. was committed on 3.1.2005 and according to the school leaving certificate, the date of birth of the revisionist was 5.4.1988 and thus it is sufficiently proved that the revisionist was below 17 years of age on the date of alleged offence. THE learned Sessions Judge has also got the ossification test of the revisionist done for determining his age and as per medical report the accused was about 18 years of age. The accused-revisionist had filed certain documentary evidence before the lower court in respect of his age, namely the school leaving certificate, copies of family register, Ration Card. In the family register the date of birth of the revisionist is mentioned as 1.11.1992 whereas in the ration card the age of accused has been shown as 10 years. As the learned Sessions Judge found discrepancies in respect of the age/date of birth of the accused in the documents filed on his behalf, therefore, she did not rely upon them.;