Court No. - 44
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 4284 of 2018 Revisionist :- Ajay Pal Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Arvind Agrawal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Tripathi B.G. Bhai
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J.
Heard Sri Arvind Agrawal, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Tripathi, B.G. Bhai, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and Sri Jai Narayan, learned AGA for the State.
This revisionist has been preferred by the revisionist for setting aside the impugned order dated 28.9.2018, passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Firozabad in Criminal Case No.289 of 2018 (State Vs. Neeraj Sonveer Singh), in Sessions Trial No.185 of 2018, under Sections 302 IPC, P.S. Tundla, District Firozabad.
On 4.7.2019 this Court had passed the following order;-
"Heard Sri Arvind Agrawal, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Tripathi B.G. Bhai, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and Sri Jai Narain, learned AGA for the State.
Learned counsel for the revisionist pointed out that though the revisionist has been declared juvenile on the basis of marksheet of class 9th in which his date of birth is mentioned as 1.1.2001 but he moved surrender application before the court concerned annexing the admit card of High School in which his role number mentioned is 0115662 and in the said admit card, his date of birth is mentioned as 3.4.1999 claiming him to be adult but subsequently he mentioned his date of birth as 1.1.2001. The trial court committed error in believing the evidence of P.W.1 who had come to prove the marksheet of the revisionist of the college of class 9th. The trial court should have been taken care in deciding the plea of juvenility by summoning the cross list of the High School admit card issued to the revisionist.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is desirable in the interest of justice that the Secretary Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, Allahabad shall produce the copy of the cross list of the Admit Card issued to the revisionist before this Court in order to verify the date of birth of the revisionist.
List the matter on 16.7.2019.
Let a copy of this order be given to learned AGA for it's compliance".
Thereafter on 16.7.2019, this Court had passed the following order;-
"Heard Sri Arvind Agrawal, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri B.G. Bhai, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 and Sri Amrit Raj Chaurasiya, learned AGA for the State.
Learned AGA has produced a copy of the cross list send by Madhyamik Shiksha Parisad, Meerut wherein the date of birth of the revisionist has been disclosed as 3.4.1999.
Learned counsel for the revisionist stated that in the interest of justice, the application Form for the High School Examination may be summoned as it has been stated by his client that his date of birth which has been mentioned in the cross list has not been written correctly and there is some clerical error.
Hence, in the interest of justice, the Secretary Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, Meerut is directed to produce the application form of the revisionist of High School Examination by the next date.
List the matter on 31.7.2019.
Copy of the order be given to learned AGA for necessary compliance".
Learned AGA for the State has argued that the application form of the revisionist has been weeded out and as per the record maintained by the Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad Regional Office, Meerut, the Additional Secretary Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, Meerut vide his letter dated 11.7.2019 which is annexed at the Admit Card as well as of the Register (Sarneey Register)/(Cross List) his date of birth has been mentioned as 3.4.1999, a copy of the said register which has been certified by the Secretary Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, Regional Office, Meerut has been produced before this Court which is taken on record hence, the contention of learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 is that the opposite party no.2 was a minor on the date of the offence and his date of birth as has been mentioned in the Mark-Sheet of Class 9th as 1.1.2001 on the basis of which the Trial Court has treated him to be a minor is not correct.
After having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and having perused the impugned order as well as the documents which have been summoned by this Court from the Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, Regional Office, Meerut in which the date of birth of opposite party no.2 has been found to be 3.4.1999, thus, on the date of the incident, the victim and the opposite party no.2 was major and the Trial Court has committed error in coming to the conclusion that as per the Mark-Sheet of Class 9th of the said school the age which has been mentioned in the said Mark-sheet as 1.1.2001 does not appear to be correct, hence, the impugned order passed by the Trial Court declaring the opposite party no.2 juvenile is not at all sustainable, hence, the same is hereby set aside. Accordingly, the present revisions stands allowed.
Order Date :- 31.7.2019 Neeraj