Delhi High Court
Deepak @ Ranjan vs State & Anr. on 5 February, 2016
Author: S. P. Garg
$-18
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
DECIDED ON : 5th FEBRUARY, 2016
+ CRL.M.C.689/2015 & CRL.M.A.No.2617/2015
DEEPAK @ RANJAN ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr.Jitender Nath Pathak, Advocate
with Mr.Durga Dutt, Advocate.
versus
STATE & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through : Mr.Amit Gupta, APP.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG
S.P.Garg, J. (Oral)
1. Present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by
the petitioner for quashing / setting aside of order dated 20.12.2014 of
learned Addl. Sessions Judge in Crl.Revision Petition No.56/2014 by
which order dated 07.12.2013 of learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate
declining to declare the petitioner juvenile on the date of incident was
upheld. Petition is contested by the State.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have
examined the file. Indisputably, the petitioner is facing trial in case FIR
No.275/2013 under Sections 363/342/376 IPC and Sections 4/6 POCSO
Act PS Ashok Vihar. During committal proceedings before the Trial
Court, the petitioner / accused claimed that he was juvenile on the date of
offence i.e. 17.09.2013. A detailed enquiry was conducted and vide order
dated 07.12.2013, the Trial Court was of the view that the petitioner was
not juvenile on the date of occurrence. The petitioner challenged the said
order in revision unsuccessfully.
3. Admittedly, the date of offence is 17.09.2013. It is not
specifically denied that the first attended school by the petitioner is
M.C.Primary Co-Ed School, C-2, Ashok Vihar, Delhi. Petitioner's father
admitted that his son studied in a school near mother dairy in Ashok
Vihar, Delhi for 2 or 3 months. He did not, however, disclose the
petitioner's date of birth. During enquiry proceedings, statement of
Rejender Singh, Principal, M.C. Primary Co-Ed School was recorded and
he proved the documents Ex.X-1 to X-3. As per the certificate issued by
him, the petitioner was admitted in the school in 1 st standard on
07.04.2000 and his date of birth was recorded as 17.10.1994. He studied
in the said school till 5th standard and date of withdrawal recorded is
29.03.2006. The genuineness and authenticity of these documents have
not been suspected. These documents came into existence long back. For
the purpose of enquiry, ossification test was also conducted and as per
ossification report, petitioner's age was determined in between 20 - 22
years as on 26.11.2013. Learned counsel for the petitioner emphasized
that as per the matriculation certificate on record date of birth of the
petitioner was 05.09.1996. It was, however, not elaborated / explained as
to how two different dates of birth surfaced in two different schools'
records. Nothing has emerged to ascertain as to for how many years the
petitioner studied in BSHSS Raypur Kuhikala Jaunpur (U.P.). No
evidence has come to infer as to when the petitioner got admission in the
said school and what date of birth was recorded therein at the time of
initial admission. Since the petitioner had studied from 1st to 5th standard
in Delhi, there is possibility of the petitioner to have taken admission in 6th
standard in the said school. The petitioner did not summon the relevant
record from the said school to prove as to when he took admission there
and what date of birth was recorded on the basis of any birth certificate or
other document there. The certificate containing date of birth 05.09.1996
is a Certificate-Cum-Mark-Sheet issued by the Board of High School and
Intermediate Education, U.P. on 10.06.2011.
4. The Courts below have committed no error to rely upon the
date of birth recorded in the school first attended by the petitioner. It is in
consonance with Rule 12 (3) of Delhi Juvenile Justice (Care and
Protection of Children) Rules, 2009 framed vide Notification
F.No.61(9)J.J. Amend. Act/AD-I.DWCD/2009/25362-391 dated
24.09.2009 published in Delhi Gazette (extraordinary).
5. It is relevant to note that Writ Petition (C) 1308/2013 was
filed before this Court to declare Rule 12 (3) of the Juvenile Justice (Care
and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 and Rule 12 (3) of the Delhi
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2009 ultra vires
and unconstitutional being violative of the Constitution of India. This writ
petition was dismissed by Division Bench No.1 of this Court vide order
dated 19.11.2015. It was categorically held therein that JJBs in Delhi were
required to follow the procedure prescribed in Rule 12 (3) of the State
Rules.
6. No other document has been placed on record by the
petitioner to prove his exact date of birth. As per the date of birth recorded
in school first attended, apparently, the petitioner was not juvenile on the
date of incident.
7. The petition lacks merits and is dismissed. It is, however,
made clear that if the petitioner comes across any cogent document about
his date of birth as 05.09.1996 he will be at liberty to move the Trial Court
to claim juvenility.
8. Pending application also stands disposed of.
(S.P.GARG)
JUDGE
FEBRUARY 05, 2016 / tr
