Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 1042 (AP)

Anuj Kumar Singh @ Anuj Singh v. State of Bihar

2002-08-27

D.N.PRASAD

body2002
Judgment Deoki Nandan Prasad, J.— This criminal revision is directed against the order dated 22-12-1999 whereby and whereunder the learned Additi-onal Sessions Judge, Palamau at Dal-tonganj dismissed Criminal Appeal No.100 of 1999 affirming the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate dated 30-8-1999 in connection with G.R. No. 426 of 1999 arising out of Palamau Sadar P.S. Case No. 121 of 1999 registered under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. 2. The persecution case in brief as stated is that on 19-4-1999 at about 2 p.m. one boy came to the house of the informant and called Bachu Chacha. The informant, wife of the deceased, came out and enquired about the matter and thereafter the boy said that he had to take one cinema pass upon which the infor-mant told him that her husband was sleeping. Thereafter the boy went away and again at about 4.30 p.m. he came and gave a call. The informant opened the grill. On seeing him her husband (deceased) named him as Anuj and asked him to come in, but when the boy did not enter, her husband went out and brought him inside and asked the informant to prepare tea. There-after two more boys were demanded four cinema pass of which the infor-mant’s husband (deceased) asked that they were only three and why they were demanded four. He asked informant to bring paper and pen for preparing pass and also to serve tea. After that when the informant came with pen and paper, she saw that one boy who was with Anuj fired at the informant’s husband, due to which her husband became injured and fell down and thereafter the boys started fleeing away says that the work has been done. On hearing the sound of firing and hulla of the informant, many persons came there and the injured was taken to hospital, but after sometime, the informant’s hus-band died. 3. The police investigated into the case and submitted charge-sheet against the petitioner and others. 4. The petitioner had filed an application for regular bail vide Cr. Misc. No. 4865 of 1999 (R) which was disposed of with direction to the Chief Judicial Magistrate Palamau at Daltonganj to hold inquiry in respect of the age of the petitioner. 3. The police investigated into the case and submitted charge-sheet against the petitioner and others. 4. The petitioner had filed an application for regular bail vide Cr. Misc. No. 4865 of 1999 (R) which was disposed of with direction to the Chief Judicial Magistrate Palamau at Daltonganj to hold inquiry in respect of the age of the petitioner. On the basis of which, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate held inquiry, witnesses were examined and docu-ments were also produced. After hearing both sides, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate passed the order dated 30-8-1999 holding that the petitioner is not a juvenile. 5. On being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, Palamau and in the appellate Court, two more witnesses were also examined and the learned Sessions Judge after hearing both sides and considering the evidence on record, dismissed the appeal by confirming the order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. Hence, this revision application. 6. Mr. A.S. Dayal, learned coun-sel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the learned court below committed error in dismissing the appeal as he has failed to consider the documents produced by the petitioner as regards to the age as the date of birth of the petitioner was 14-10-1983 and all the witnesses produced have supported the case of the petitioner and the Court below also did not consider the documents, viz. Transfer certificate, Admission Register and Horoscope which are evidently disclosed that the date of birth of the petitioner is 14-10-1983 while the occurrence took place on 19-4-1999, on which date the petiti-oner was below 16 years of age and, therefore, the petitioner was minor at the relevant time. It is also submitted that two witnesses were examined in the appellate Court and they had also proved the admission register showing that the date of birth men-tioned in the said Register is 14-10-1983 and as such the petitioner was minor. 7. The learned counsel appe-aring on behalf of the petitioner also relied upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of Rajinder Chandra v. State of Chhatisgarh and another1, and also the case of Santenu Mitra v. State of West Bengal2. 8. On the other hand, Mr. 7. The learned counsel appe-aring on behalf of the petitioner also relied upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of Rajinder Chandra v. State of Chhatisgarh and another1, and also the case of Santenu Mitra v. State of West Bengal2. 8. On the other hand, Mr. T.N. Verma, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor contended before me that there is no illegality in the order passed by the lower courts and there is concurrent finding of facts of the two courts holding that the petitioner is not a juvenile. It is further argued that the entry made in the admission Register about the date of birth of the petitioner was also found to be doubtful and the horoscope paper has been created at the belated stage. It is also submitted that the Medical Board was also constituted and the petitioner was duly examined by the doctors and the Medical Board opined that he is aged in between 17 to 19 years and as such, the petitioner cannot be said to be a juvenile on the date of occurrence and, therefore, the petition is fit to be dismissed. 9. Perused the lower Court records. From going through the records, apparently an inquiry was held by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palamau at Daltonganj. At that stage the admission Register of Rotary School as well as Brahman School where the petitioner is said to have studied in the beginning have not been produced though those documents appear to have been produced at the appellate Court and the genuineness of those documents also found to be doubtful as the appellate Court found the entry at Sl. No. 102 in the Admission Register of Rotary School (Ext.6) showing one Anil Kumar Singh and not Shri Dina Nath Singh, the father of the petitioner has put his signature as guardian at the time of his first admission in the school. The Admission Register of Brahmin School which can be said to be the basis of admission Register of Zila School, Daltonganj (Ext. 5) admittedly has not been filed and proved before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palamau at Daltonganj. The Admission Register of Brahmin School which can be said to be the basis of admission Register of Zila School, Daltonganj (Ext. 5) admittedly has not been filed and proved before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palamau at Daltonganj. Moreover the entry of the same was exhibited/proved by PW3 who has stated that it was noted down by one Harinandan Singh and the signature was put by the Principal and the said entry was made on 7-2-1996, whereas the said PW 3 was appointed in the said school on 4-6-1998 and admittedly, he was not present when the said entry was made in the Admission Register. The said Harinandan Singh, who made the entry in the said Register, though in service at the relevant time in the said school, was not examined on behalf of the petitioner. The Medical Board was also constituted and the petitioner was examined by the Medical Board and the Medical Board opined about the age of the petitioner in between 17 to 19 years. The Juvenile Court and the appellate Court both have considered the entire aspect of the matter and the evidence brought on the record in detail. There is a concurrent finding that the petitioner was not juvenile on the relevant date of occurrence. It is also evident that the genuinity of the entry made in the admission Register is doubtful. The Juvenile Court passed the order in detail discussing the evidence on record and also expressed his opinion that on appearance of the accused/petitioner, he is aged about 18 years old. 10. PW2, the father of the boy, admitted in his evidence that his son, the petitioner also studied in the Rotary School for two years in Class VI and VII, whereas the petitioner had studied in Brahmin School for one year, but the admission register of both the said schools could not be produced in the Juvenile Court. PW4 is the brother of the petitioner. PW4 is the brother of the petitioner. Two witnesses, namely, Ram Naresh Singh, Assistant Teacher of Rotary School and Vyash Singh, Assistant Teacher of Brahmin High School have been examined at the appellate stage, but the Headmasters of those two schools who are said to have put their sig-nature at the time of admission of the petitioner have not been examined nor the person who made endorsement about the entry have been examined, Admittedly PW3 who has said speci-fically that the said entry in the admission register was made by one Harinandan Singh, Assistant Teacher of Brahmin School and he has not been examined in the case. Ram Naresh Singh, who proved the admi-ssion Register of Rotary School, also admitted that he was not present in 1988 in that school when the entry was made in respect of the petitioner. There is a signature of one Anil Kumar Singh in the column of father or guardian dated 11-1-1988 and so this witness cannot be said to be a com-petent witness on this point. When the genuineness of the entry of Admission register has been doubted, then only the medical report can be the scientific basis for determination of age. 11. Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner placed reliance in Rajinder Chandra (supra) and Santenu Mitra (supra) of which the fact of the instant case is quite distinguishable. In the instant case, the age of the petitioner is not just on the border of 16 years. The original as well as the appellate Court discussed the evidence on record meticulously which is the finding of facts and that cannot be reversed by this Court at this stage. The finding recorded by the Juvenile Court has been considered and affir-med by the appellate Court by dis-cussing the entire matter in detail. In such situation, it would not be proper and justified for this Court to interfere with the concurrent findings recorded the courts below. 12. Having regard to the discussi-ons aforesaid, I do not find any merit in this revision application which, is accordingly, dismissed, Let the lower Court records be sent down to the Court concerned forthwith. Revision dismissed. 1. 2002 (1) SCC 287. 2. 1998 (2) East Cr. C. 1112 (SC)