Harbans Lal , J. - (1.) These two petitions under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter called in short as Cr.P.C.) have been filed by the complainant-petitioner challenging the orders dated 2.2.2006 and 3.4.2006 respectively, passed by the learned A.D.J. (Fast Track) No. 1, Jaipur City, Jaipur in Sessions Case No. 9/2005.
(2.) Briefly stated, the relevant facts are that during the course of trial of the abovesaid sessions case, the prosecution filed an application on 12.9.2005 along-with the birth certificate of Kumari Jyotsana who was born on 5.2.1989 in Santokba Durlabhji Medical Hospital, Jaipur along-with her sister as twins stating that the birth certificate of Kumari Jyotsana could not be produced in evidence inadvertently which may be now taken on record, but after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the said application was dismissed on 2.2.2006.
(3.) Thereafter, another application under Section 294/311 Cr.P.C. was filed on 3.4.2006 stating that the Investigating Officer has wilfully not seized the birth certificate of Kumari Jyotsana. As per the birth certificate, her age was 14 years, 1 month and 23 days on the date of occurrence. Section 59 of the Indian Evidence Act provides that all the facts except (conditions of documents or electronics records) may be proved by oral evidence. Since the date of birth of Kumari Jyotsana is mentioned in the birth certificate, the same can be proved by producing the birth certificate. It was also prayed that the birth certificate of Kumari Jyotsana PW-1 be taken on record and the accused be required to admit or deny the same and in case he denies the document, Sub-Registrar of Births and Deaths posted in Jaipur Nagar Nigam, Jaipur may be summoned along-with relevant documents so that justice may be done to the parties. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, this application was also dismissed on 3.4.2006 itself. Being aggrieved by the said orders, the petitioner-complainant has challenged the orders in these petitions which substantially involve the same controversy and seek same relief. So, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.;