The present revision has been filed by the accused-revisionist, Kallu @ Shuaib @ Uvaish under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. read with section 53 of the Juvenile Justice (care and Protection of the Children) Act, 2000 against the order dated 12.3.2010 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.5, Sitapur on the application moved by the revisionist in Session Trial No.125 of 2004, under Section 302/34 IPC, arising out of Case Crime No.62 of 2001, Police Station Sidhauli, District Sitapur.
Learned Sessions Court had rejected the application of the revisionist for declaring him as juvenile on the date of the incident, a child conflict with law. The accused-revisionist produced his school leaving certificate of Class-III to claim that his date of birth recorded in the certificate is 1.1.1985 and, therefore, on the date of incident i.e. 25.2.2001, he was around 16 years and 10 months of age and, therefore, he should be declared as juvenile, a child conflict with law, on the date of incident.
The accused had filed two Transfer Certificates of the school. One Transfer Certificate was filed through List No.27 Kha. In the aforesaid Transfer Certificate, his date of admission in the school was mentioned as 25.8.1992 and the date of leaving of the school was mentioned as 31.7.1993. In the aforesaid Transfer Certificate, it was mentioned that he passed out Class-III from the Primary School. In the aforesaid Transfer Certificate, name of the father of the accused-revisionist is mentioned as Julfkar Ali. The aforesaid Transfer Certificate was issued by the school on 5.10.2001. Thereafter, the second Transfer Certificate was filed through List No.120 Kha, which was allegedly issued by the Primary School on 14.11.2008 i.e. after 7 years and 9 months from the date of issuance of the first Transfer Certificate. In the second Transfer Certificate, the admission date is mentioned as 25.8.1990 and the date of leaving of the school is mentioned as 5.7.1993.
Even on bare perusal of the second Transfer Certificate, it is evident that there is over-writing on the date of birth. The Principal, who appeared before the Sessions Court, had specifically said that she was not present when the accused took admission and studied.
Finding discrepancies in the two Transfer Certificates and the fact that no record was available on the basis of which the date of birth of the accused was mentioned in the two certificates and, considering the fact that in his statement recorded on 24.10.2008, under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused-revisionist had said that he was 32 years of age and, when he was arrested on 3.10.2001, he was 25 years of age and thus, the trial court had rejected the claim of the accused for declaring him as juvenile.
I have gone through the impugned order carefully.
The trial court's finding that the accused was around 25 years of age on the date of incident, cannot be said to be incorrect. The revisionist has been convicted for heinous offence under Section 302/34 IPC by the trial court. The manner in which the incident was caused would clearly demonstrate fully developed mind of the revisionist and, the planning in execution of the offence, I do not find any error in the order passed by the trial court.
Thus, the revision being without any merit and substance, is dismissed.
Order Date :- 17.12.2019 Rao/-