Vikram vs State of Haryana

S.C. Malte, J.

This revision is against the order dated 15.7.1996 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal. By that order, the trial Judge declined to accept the claim that accused Vikram was less then 16 years of age on the date of incident. Consequently, he declined to send Vikram to the Juvenile Court.

The incident in this case took place on 23.5.1984. The age of accused is to be ascertained as on that day. The accused Vikram comes forthwith a case that his date of birth was 10.11.1978. He would, therefore, complete 16 years of age on 9.11.1994. Thus, on the date of incident dated 28.5.1994 he would be below 16 years, and would be entitled to be tried before the Juvenile Court.

Incidently, a brief reference to the incident in this case would also be necessary to ascertain the part played by this accused, as per the prosecution case. The copy of the FIR placed before me indicates that the incident has arisen out of some quarrel between the boys in the age group of 13 to 16 years or thereabout. Deceased Parveen Kumar had some quarrel with other four boys including Vikram. The FIR indicates that the difference between the boys had been patched up. However, on finding that Parveen was missing since 27.5.1994, the father of Parveen entertained grave doubt against these boys as the persons who possibly were involved in foul play with Parveen. A report regarding missing of Parveen was lodged on 28.5.1994. In that report, the father of Parveen indicated that he has doubt against these four persons including Vikram, and he suspects that they have killed Parveen. About two days thereafter, dead body of Parveen Kumar was spotted. It was subjected to postmortem examination. It appears that viscera from his body was sent to the Chemical Examiner who opined that the death was due to poisoning. That seems to be the prosecution case in brief.

In support of his contention, accused Vikram has placed on record a matriculation certificate showing that his birth date was 10.11.1978. The zerox copy of that certificate is also placed before me as Ex.P9. It is as such a mark sheet issued by the Board of School Education, Haryana. In that certificate the name, and the date of birth is also mentioned. The date of birth is mentioned in words and figures. Thus on perusal of that certificate there seems to be no doubt about its authenticity. The learned trial Court, however, filed to take into consideration this certificate. The order passed by the trial Court indicates that it took into consideration birth date of one Jagat Singh, in order to arrive at the conclusion that the said Jagat Singh was born to Ram Kumar is no other than the accused born to Ram Kumar son of Prita. On behalf of the accused, evidence is led to show that there is one more person of the similar name Ram Kumar son of Prita. That piece of evidence was disbelieved by the trial Court on the ground that A.W. 6 Ram Kumar son of Dariya alias Prita cannot be relied on in respect of his claim that his father''s name was Dariya alias Prita. On this premise it was observed that the claim made by AW 6 that Jagat Singh was born to him was not acceptable and the said Jagat Singh son of Ram Kumar is no other than the person Vikram son of Ram Kumar. On reading the copy of the testimony of AW 6 as such he is not at all shaken in crossexamination in respect of his claim that his father''s name was Dariya alias Prita. If this evidence is accepted as it is, it would appear that there is none more person whose name is Ram Kumar son of Prita staying in the same village. Even if the evidence of AW 6 Ram Kumar son of Dariya alias Prita is considered to be not fully reliable, there is another piece of evidence in the form of matriculation certificate referred above which shows that accused Vikram was born on 10.11.1978. The trial Court failed to weigh that certificate alongwith other material on record.

Thus on considering the material before me I find that on the date of incident, the said Vikram Singh was Juvenile. Consequently, the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal on 15.7.1996 is set aside, and it is directed that case of the petitioner be placed before juvenile Court.