Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 564 (MP)

Anuj Singh v. State of M. P.

2007-05-11

B.M.GUPTA

body2007
ORDER 1. Whether the petitioner was below 18 years of age at the time of the incident that is on 1.1.2006 is the question to be determined by this order. 2. Vide impugned order dated 8th December, 2006, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhind, has come to the conclusion that he was not below 18 years of age. Two types of evidence was placed and considered by the learned Judge. 1. The school record based on horoscope. 2. The ossification test report. 3. Vide statement of witness Shri Dayal, he prepared horoscope (Ex. P-l) of the petitioner before 6 to 7 months of his statement on the basis of a panchank (Ex. P-2). As per the horoscope the date of birth of the petitioner is 5th March, 1988. Vide statement of witnesses Ram Pratap Singh, it appears that petitioner sought his admission in the School in the year 1993-94 and as per the admission register Ex. P-3, his date of birth is 5th March, 1998. The learned Judge did not accept this report on the ground. 1. That, as per the statements of date of birth in the school was mentioned on the basis of horoscope and horoscope was prepared just before 6 to 7 months. 2. That, as stated by witness Ram Pratap Singh, usually at the time of admission, less age is shown by the parents? This statement of the witness is not definite. It may be true. It may not be true. Hence the basing conclusion on such statement appears erroneous. The first ambiguity found by the learned Judge is correct but simply on this ground, disbelieving the School record, which was noted much earlier than the incident of 2nd July, 1993, does not appear justified without any other ground. 4. With regard to ossification test, admittedly on 25th July, 2006, petitioner was found 19 years of age and accordingly at the time of incident, the age of the petitioner was about 18 years and six months. Only a difference about five months 24 days. 4. With regard to ossification test, admittedly on 25th July, 2006, petitioner was found 19 years of age and accordingly at the time of incident, the age of the petitioner was about 18 years and six months. Only a difference about five months 24 days. As observed by the apex Court in Jaya Mala v. Home Secretary, Government of Jammu and Kashmir and others [ 1982 CrLJ 1777 ] and other Benches of this Court in Akeel s/o Rehman Khan v. State of M.P. [1998 CrLJ (M.P.) 82] and Sandeep @ Pappi v. State of Madhya Pradesh [1994 (2) CCrJ 128 (MP)] it appears that a judicial notice can be taken of a fact that a margin of, error in the age ascertained by radiological examination is two years on either side. 5. It is settled that when two views are possible the view favourable to the accused ought to be accepted. Thus, by both the evidence concluding the petitioner above 18 years at the time of incident appears erroneous. 6. Consequently, the impugned order dated 8th December, 2006 is set aside. It is directed that after determining the petitioner as below 18 years of age at the time of incident, further steps are to be taken below in accordance with law.