Heard Shri Rahul Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the revisionist, Shri Tripathi B.G. Bhai for the respondent and learned Additional Government Advocate.
An order dated 10.09.2009 passed by the VIth Additional Sessions Judge, Mathura in S.T. No. 685 of 2003 (State Vs. Mahesh and others) has been challenged by means of this revision, whereby the trial Court has held the revisionist to be over 18 years and refused to declare him as a juvenile and has refused to send his case to the Juvenile Justice Board.
Learned counsel for the revisionist argued that the date of birth of the revisionist as per the High School Certificate furnished by the father of the revisionist was 1.2.1986. Calculating from that date, the revisionist could have been only 14 years on 27/28.2002 when he is said to have committed the crime against the victim under sections 363/366/376 IPC. The Trial Judge was wrong in considering the revisionist to be over 18 years on the basis of the certificate of the Primary School, Bisauli, where he was admitted in class-I and his date of birth was recorded as 1.3.1984 or the school certificate of Laxmi Narain Mandir, Sadabad Road, Mathura, where he allegedly took his admission in Class-IV in 1994 where again his date of birth was shown as 1.3.1984. If the latter age is taken, then he would have been over 18 years on the date of incident.
Learned counsel for the revisionist has stated that the revisionist had appeared in High School in 2001, which was prior to the date of incident in 2002 and it could not be said that he has given a wrong age in appearing in High School. There was little reason to prefer the certificates or the statements of the Head masters of the two schools, viz. Ramesh Chandra, of Primary Pathshala, Bisauli and Laxmi Narain Sharma of Vidya Mandir, Sadabad Road, Mathura to the High School Certificate because Ramesh Chandra admits that he joined the school in 2003, whereas the admission of the revisionist has been cancelled on 30.9.1992 on account of continual absence. Admission register of the Vidya Mandir was loose and the entry pertaining to the revisionist was cello taped. Shri Tripathi B.G. Bhai, learned counsel for the respondent, however, contended that Banwari Lal, the father of the revisionist admits that he bad become Sadhu in 1988. He also admits that when he got the revisionist admitted in Junior High School, Jugtana in class-VI, he did not give any certificate about his age. Considering the aforesaid circumstances, I do not see any illegality in the impugned order of the trial court. Significantly, the age, in both the initial schools, in which the revisionist was admitted, was the same (1.3.1984). Thus, the two certificates corroborate each other. Simply because some pages of the admission register were torn or cello taped in the Vidya Mandir school, is no reason to doubt the authenticity of the information therein. Also the register was maintained in the normal course of business in both the schools and there is no reason to doubt the correctness simply because the principal had joined the school after the revisionist had already left the school. As there was no basis for the age mentioned on the Jugtana school, I see no reason it to prefer the earlier certificates of age. Also the matriculation certificate was made later on and there is no reason to prefer it to the initial certificates of the revisionists. So far as U.P. is concerned, the UP Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children), Rules, 2004 apply and Rule 22 therein unlike Rule 12(3) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules 2007 does not give any preference to the matriculation certificate. I think the UP Rules are more rational and correct because these are known facts that very often at the later stages, ages of children are reduced so as to improve their prospect for employment or in the eventuality of their failing in any class, by the parents.
In view of this discussion, I find that the authorities cited by the learned counsel for the revisionist need to be confined to their own facts. Accordingly I find that the revision is devoid of merit. It is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 12.1.2010 Ishrat