Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1746 (ALL)

Ranjeet Rawat @ Darshan Kumar v. State of U. P.

2014-05-28

ARVIND KUMAR TRIPATHI II

body2014
JUDGMENT Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Tripathi (II), J. This criminal revision has been filed by Ranjeet Rawat @ Darshan Kumar challenging the order dated 9.9.2013, by which Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.3, Unnao has rejected the application of revisionist for declaring him juvenile. 2. Heard Shri Kumar Ayush, learned counsel for the revisionist and Shri Sharad Dixit, learned A.G.A. 3. None appeared from the side of respondent no.2 despite service of notice. 4. It was submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that learned Sessions Judge, Unnao has, without going through the material on record, rejected the application. Revisionist was a student of class IX at the time of alleged incident. The evidence of clerk of Saraswati Vidya Mandir Inter College, Shuklaganj, Unnao was ignored by the court below where his date of birth shown to be 15th June, 1994. On the basis of this date of birth, the revisionist is juvenile and order dated 9.9.2013 is liable to be quashed. 5. As per factual matrix of the case, a first information report was lodged by Sandeep Kumar Gupta against unknown persons under Sections 302, 201 I.P.C. Police Station-Gangaghat, District-Unnao. After the charge-sheet was submitted and case was committed to the Court of Sessions and application was moved by the revisionist for declaring him to be juvenile. This application was earlier rejected vide order dated 17.4.2013, then again an application was moved to declare him juvenile which too was rejected by the court below vide impugned order. 6. Learned counsel for the revisionist relied upon the decision of Vijay Singh versus State of Delhi, reported in (2012) 8 SCC 763 , in which it has been held that the school leaving certificate in which date of birth is recorded in school admission register and corresponding entry in school leaving certificate is a valid document to be considered for declaring a person juvenile. 7. In the instant case, to prove the fact that revisionist is juvenile, affidavit has been filed by Raj Kishore Rawat and school leaving certificate of Saraswati Vidya Mandir Inter College, was produced. The earlier application was rejected also on the ground that it has not been proved as to Ranjeet Rawat @ Darshan Kumar are one and the same person. 8. In support of claim, Gaya Prasad clerk of Saraswati Vidya Mandir Inter College, Shuklaganj, Unnao was examined. The earlier application was rejected also on the ground that it has not been proved as to Ranjeet Rawat @ Darshan Kumar are one and the same person. 8. In support of claim, Gaya Prasad clerk of Saraswati Vidya Mandir Inter College, Shuklaganj, Unnao was examined. The witness has stated that he was posted as clerk in that Institution since 2004. Ranjeet Rawat @ Darshan Kumar son of Raj Kishore Rawat has taken admission in his Institution on 7.7.2007 and his date of birth was mentioned as 15 June, 1994. After he failed in class-IX, he again took admission in the same class but he did not turn up in the month of July, 2008 and his admission was cancelled. 9. This witness has proved the school leaving certificate. 10. According to Section 35 of Indian Evidence Act: - An entry in any public or other official book, register or record [or an electronic record], stating a fact in issue or relevant, and made by a public servant in discharge of his official duty, or by any other person in performance of a duty specially enjoined by the law in the country in which such book, register or record [or an electronic record] is kept is itself a relevant fact. So in order to make a document admissible, three conditions are to be fulfilled: - (i) the document must be in the nature of an entry in any public or other official book, register or record; (ii) it must state a fact in issue or a relevant fact; and (iii) the entry must be made by a public servant in the discharge of his official duties. 11. In absence of any evidence to the contrary, the entry in school leaving certificate or scholar register is not made by a public servant in discharge of his official duties, so this document cannot be said to be admissible to prove the date of birth. 12. It is also worth noting that the revisionist was admitted in class-IX in that particular Institution so in order to be declared juvenile he has to prove as to what was the basis of making that entry in scholar register. There is no evidence to show that any document was produced to form the basis of the entry made in the scholar register. There is no evidence to show that any document was produced to form the basis of the entry made in the scholar register. No doubt, according to Rule 12 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rule, 2007 and under Rule 22(5) of Uttar Pradesh Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Child) Rules, 2004, the date of birth certificate from the school first attended is relevant but that entry should be proved beyond reasonable doubt and it has to be shown as to what was the basis of that entry in the scholar register or school leaving certificate, who told the date of birth of the child to clerk concerned. In absence of that it cannot be said that the impugned order suffers from any illegality. 13. The previous order dated 17.4.2013 is also on record. The court below, on the basis of the same evidence, has held that from the basis of scholar register, it can not be said that Ranjeet Rawat is juvenile, this order dated 17.4.2013 is unchallenged and still in existence. In view of this, learned court below has rightly refrained from given any opinion regarding juvenility of revisionist on the basis of same record. 14. There is no illegality or irregularity in that portion of order too. Criminal revision is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed.