Chandu Lal vs Sucha Singh

S.C. Malte, J.

This revision is against the order dated 22.5.1997 passed by the Sessions Judge, Hissar by which he has held that accused Sucha Singh is juvenile offender and he be tried separately by the Court under Juvenile Justice Act at Bhiwani.

In all four accused including Sucha Singh are being prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34, and other Sections. The case is being tried before Sessions Judge, Hissar. The recording of the prosecution evidence was over. The statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were also recorded. It is at that juncture that application was submitted on behalf of the accused Sucha Singh, whereby he claimed that was below the age of 16 years on the date of incident. According to him he is named as Sucha Singh alias Sunil son of Ram Saran. He claims that his date of birth is 16.12.1978. Thus according to him, on the date of incident on the night between 31.3.1994 and 1.4.1994 he had completed 15 years, three months and fifteen days of age and, therefore, he was a juvenile within the meaning of Clause (h) of Section 2 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 1968. In support of that contention, evidence in the form of school leaving certificate and testimony of a witness Zilla Singh, a clerk from the school, was led. The trial Court accepted the testimony and passed the impugned order mentioned above.

Aggrieved by that order, this revision has been filed by the complainant. On behalf of the revision petitioner, it was submitted that the school record showing the birth date of the accused is not reliable because the birth date is written in a ink different from the ink by which the remaining portion was written. It was submitted that there is no evidence to show that Sucha Singh was also known as Sunil as alias. It was, therefore, submitted that the birth date as shown in the school record cannot be accepted. My attention was also invited to the fact that from the stage of investigation till the submission of application by the accused after the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded, he never indicated that he was also known by alias name Sunil. It was contended, on the other hand, all along during that period he has signed as Sucha Singh whenever his signatures were required.

On the other hand, it was submitted that not only the school record that shows the birth date of Sucha Singh but also the Gazette in which the result of 10th examination was declared, shows the same date of birth as recorded in the school register. In addition to that, my attention was also invited to the documents which were produced in this revision, vide Crl. application No. 25650 of 1997. These documents reveal that on 20.3.1994, a report by one Pawan Kumar was recorded by the Police in which there was allegation against Sucha Singh. In that report the said Sucha Singh was also addressed by alias name Sunil.

As per Section 21 of the Juvenile Justice Act where the Court is satisfied that the offender was a juvenile on the date of commission of offence, then, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law for the time being in force, the said juvenile offender is to be dealt with by the Juvenile Court. Section 24 of the said Act further provides juvenile offender shall not be charged with or tried for any offence together with a person who is not a juvenile. A person is said to be juvenile as per Clause (h) of Section 2 Juvenile Justice Act, 1968 if a boy has not attained the age of 16 years. The matter, therefore, rests on the question as to the correct date of birth of Sucha Singh in order to ascertain whether on the date of incident he was a juvenile offender.

It was contended on behalf of the revision petitioner that all along the period of investigation and till the statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded, Sucha Singh never indicated that he was known by alias name Sunil, or that he was a juvenile offender. Inony opinion, mere absence of such stand taken by the accused during trial would not prevent him from raising such a plea at a later stage. There is a legal provision to try a juvenile offender. The effect of the legal provision is not wiped off simply because accused, either due to ignorance or because of absence of proper advice, did not raise such a plea. All that is required to be seen is as to whether he is in a position to place before the Court sufficient material to establish his claim. The counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to Section 18 of the Act wherein the Court has to ascertain on apparent appearance of the offender as to whether he was a juvenile. It was contended that apparently he was not a juvenile when he was arrested. May it be so, but that does not prevent either the accused to come forward with a folea that he is a juvenile, or the Court to enquire into the question as to whether the accused juvenile.

It was vehemently argued on behalf of the petitioner that admittedly the date as shown in the school register is in ink different from that ink by which the other portion was written. This aspect coupled with the absence of any plea prior to the application submitted by the accused, is said to throw serious doubt as to the reliability of the date mentioned in the school register. In that context, my attention was invited to the statement of Zile Singh, a clerk from Yasodha High School, Mori Gate, Hissar. He has stated school register indicated that Sunil son of Ram Saran was a student of the 9th Class and his date of birth was shown as 30.12.1978. He has admitted that the date of birth is written in a different ink than the ink in which the other entries were recorded. He has also proved the form that was filled in at the time of admission of the student Sunil. That form was by one Rajinder Singh. It was submitted that neither the father of the accused nor the said Rajinder Singh was examined to establish the authenticity of the date of birth given in admission form submitted at the time of getting admission of the student Sunil in the school. That doubt in respect of date of birth is cleared up if one considers the Board examination result published in a Gazette. The name of student Sunil and his birth date as 16.12.1978 was mentioned. I would have appreciated the Sessions Judge if in his order he has properly dealt with that aspect. In his order he has simply referred to the existence of the Gazette as Ex.A2, but has not given further details, and has not discussed about its impact on the weight and value of the claim made by the accused Sucha Singh. That apart, besides the mention of the birth date in the Gazette mentioned above, in this Court, the counsel for the accused has placed before me a certified copy obtained from the Court of Judicial Magistrate II class, Hissar. That copy pertains to a statement of one Pawan Kumar recorded by the police. In that statement dated 20.3.1994 Pawan Kumar has addressed as Sunil alias Sucha Singh. This clarifies the aspect that accused Sucha Singh was also named as alias Sunil. In view of that I find that date of birth as given in the school record can be relied on for the purpose of ascertaining whether the offender was juvenile. In this view of the matter, the order the Sessions Judge, Hissar, is upheld. Revision dismissed. The Sessions Judge is to proceed further in view of the order passed by him on 22.5.1997.

Revision dismissed.