Court No. - 28
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 147 of 2016
Revisionist :- Laxman Pal
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. & Another
Counsel for Revisionist :- Pulak Ganguly,Rajiv Chowdhury
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Praveen Kumar Singh
Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Heard Sri Pulak Ganguly, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Praveen Kumar Singh, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 and Sri L.D. Rajbhar, learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P.
This revision has been preferred against the order dated 14.10.2015 passed by Sessions Judge, Court No. 5, Varanasi in Criminal Misc. Case No. 1 of 2015 (State v. Laxman Pal), whereby the application of the revisionist to declare him juvenile was rejected and it was held that he was major.
The learned trial court, on the basis of date of birth mentioned in the school first attended, i.e. Prathmik Vidyalaya, Varanasi, held that date of birth of the revisionist is 10.03.1993. It was further held that the date of birth mentioned in the high school certificate is fabricated and false. Although in the high school certificate, date of birth of the revisionist was mentioned as 04.09.1996, but C.W.1 Anil Kumar Yadav had admitted this fact that he could not see the basis on which the revisionist was admitted in the college. At the time of admission, date of birth certificate was not taken.
Learned counsel for the revisionist, relying on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Ashwani Kumar Saxena v. State of M.P. reported in 2012 (9) SCC 750 contended that if high school certificate is available, then the date of birth of the revisionist has to be determined on the basis of date of birth mentioned in the high school certificate. No other certificate can be taken into consideration in this regard.
Learned counsel for opposite party and learned A.G.A. for the State, relying on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Parag Bhati (Juvenile) thr. Legal Guardian-Mother-Smt. Rajni Bhati v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. reported in 2016 (12) SCC 744 contended that if the date of birth mentioned in the matriculation certificate is doubtful, the other evidence may be taken into consideration for determining the age of a person.
This fact is not disputed that revisionist Laxman Pal had taken admission in Class I in Prathmik Vidyalaya, Awsanpur Vikas Kshetra, Harhua, Varanasi and studied there up to Class IV. In the school register, his date of birth is mentioned as 10.03.1993. The revisionist has not explained as to how his date of birth is mentioned as 04.09.1996 in the matriculation certificate. On this ground, the learned trial court held that the date of birth of the revisionist mentioned in the high school certificate is false and fabricated. Then the trial court has considered the date of birth of the revisionist mentioned in the school first attended and held that it is based on evidence and there is no doubt about the date of birth mentioned in Prathmik Vidyalaya, Awsanpur Vikas Kshetra, Harhua, Varanasi.
In view of above, I find no illegality in the impugned order passed by the court below.
The instant revision sans merit and is accordingly dismissed. Order Date :- 24.4.2018 I. Batabyal