Dinesh Kumar Singh, J. - (1.) This Criminal Revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 22.1.2005 passed by Sessions Judge, Baghpat in Bail Application No. 918 of 2004 (State of U.P. vs. Uttam Tomar) arising out of Case Crime No.275 of 2004 under sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302, 120-B IPC PS Chhaprauli, District Baghpat whereby the revisionist has been held to be major and not a juvenile and his application for getting himself declared a juvenile has been dismissed by the impugned order.
(2.) The facts of the case, in brief, as mentioned in the impugned order are that the accused-revisionist stated himself to be a student of class XI of Adarsh Vaidic Vidaylaya Inter College, Nangla Sinauli who had passed his High School from Janvijai Inter College, Kudinagal, Baghpat wherein his date of birth was recorded as 10.12.1986. The same date of birth has also been entered in his mark sheet of High School and also in Gazette of Janvijay Inter College, Kudinangal. Thus, on the date of occurrence (9.9.2004) his aged stood at 17 years and nine months only. Therefore, he prayed to be declared a juvenile delinquent in conflict with law.
(3.) In the impugned order, it is mentioned that a report was summoned from the Chief Medical College, Baghpat, who submitted his report dated 22.11.2004 and found the aged of the revisionist to be 20 years. It is further mentioned in the impugned order that from the side of the revisionist Anil Kumar, Clerk of Janvijay Inter College was examined as APW-1. He had also presented photocopy of enrolment register (Exbt.P-I) and photocopy of High School mark sheet and also certificate relating to his place of residence, in which his date of birth was recorded as 10.12.1986. From the side of the State, voter's list of the year 1999 of Vikas Khand Baraut, Gram Panchayat Loyan was presented in which at sl.no.38, the age of revisionist was shown as 18 years and thus was made a voter. Learned court below framed a question as to whether on the basis of the documents provided by the revisionist, the revisionist could prove himself to be a juvenile delinquent or not. In this regard, it is further mentioned in the order that first of all attention of the court below was drawn towards the certificate of Class X, issued by Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, U.P. and enrolment register (Exbt.P-1) and much emphasis was laid upon these documents and it was stated that since the age of the revisionist was recorded as 10.12.1986 in these documents, on the date of occurrence he would be treated to be a juvenile. The APW-1 Anil Kumar in examination-in-chief had stated that in the High School mark sheet no.0362335 issued by the Madhyamik Shiksha Parishd, U.P. in the year 2004, the roll number of the revisionist was 2441638 and his age was recorded to be 10.12.1986 and this examination was passed by him as private candidate. In cross examination, this witness admitted that Janvijay Inter College was not a Government College, rather the same was an aided recognized inter college. What certificate of having passed last examination was presented by the revisionist when he filled up the form to appear as a private candidate in High School was not produced before him nor did he know about it. He had no knowledge as to in which class had he studied prior to getting admitted in his college. He also does not know as to what date of birth was filled up by him when he filled up the form to appear in High School examination. What documents were submitted by him at the time of filling of form as a private candidate, he had no knowledge. His parents did not appear to be examined, rather an affidavit was presented of his mother, in paragraph no.3 of which she had stated that her son had passed High School examination from Janvijai Inter College, Kudinangal and that his date of birth was 10.12.1986 but this witness was not presented for being cross-examined, therefore, her statement would not be admissible in evidence. The other witness had also submitted his statement on an affidavit and in paragraph no. 3 it was disclosed that the date of birth of revisionist was got typed to be 10.11.1986 but the same was modified as 10.12.1986 but whoever had made the cutting thereon, did not put initial on the same. Further, it is recorded in the impugned order that the photocopy of the certificate of the school in which he was admitted for the first time in school and thereafter when he was admitted to next school, no transfer certificates were presented of the earlier school, so that it could be known as to what was his age recorded in the first school when he took admission. APW-1 had admitted that he had no knowledge as to on what basis the age was filled up by the revisionist in his form of High School examination. From this evidence, the court below has concluded that there was no basis given by the revisionist of recording his date of birth in High School examination form. The court below had held that the age of the child would be taken to be proved only when his/her parents state that they had pointed out the age of their child at the time of registration in school and they depose so before the court to prove the same. In the case at hand, it is found that none of the parents appeared before the court and proved that they had recorded the age of their son to be 10.11.1986 and thereafter same was modified to be 10.12.1986. In these circumstances, learned court below has discarded the age of the revisionist which was mentioned in the High School certificate on the ground that it was incumbent upon the revisionist to file the proof of his age which was recorded in the first school that he had joined and thereafter in further schools in which he had gone to study and had taken admission on the basis of the transfer certificate issued by the last school, should have been filed. Since he had not given basis of recording his date of birth to be 10.12.1986 in the form of High School, in which he appeared as private candidate, the age recorded therein cannot be believed. A number of citations have also been mentioned by the learned court below in the impugned order but they are of much earlier periods when the Act of 2000 had not come in force nor the original Act of 1986 had come in force. But he had drawn inference from those citations that it was very often seen that the parents would get the age of their wards reduced while getting the admission in an institution, hence without credible proof, such entry of age in High School certificate, may not be held proved for want of documents showing all the links from school first attended upto the admission taken in High School. Learned court below has found contradictory evidence on record in view of the revisionist having been shown as a major in voter list and because of the doubt being entertained about the genuineness of entry of age in High School Certificate, the same has been discarded. Hence, the court below has relied upon the report of the Chief Medical Officer dated 22.11.2004 in which it has been specifically pointed out that his age was found to be 22 years and even if benefit of two years on the lower side be given, he would be treated to be above 18 years and hence cannot be held to be a minor. On this basis, the court below has held the accused-revisionist to be major and not a juvenile.;