Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 269 (RAJ)

Sujaram @ Sujanmal v. State of Rajasthan

2018-01-19

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2018
JUDGMENT Sandeep Mehta, J —By way of this revision, the petitioner seeks to challenge the order dated 30.5.2016 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Jalore in Cr.Case No.42/2016 in relation to the proceedings of F.I.R. 37/2016 registered at the P.S. Nosra whereby, the application filed on behalf of the petitioner for being declared as a juvenile was rejected. 2. The petitioner is facing trial before the learned Sessions Judge for the offences under Sections 323, 341, 376 and 511 I.P.C. and Section 7/8 of POCSO Act. The incident of attempted sexual assault on Sushri 'G', daughter of the complainant by the petitioner Sujaram @ Sujanmal allegedly took place on 26.3.2016. 3. The F.I.R. was lodged by respondent Smt.Hanja Devi mother of the girl on the very same day i.e. 26.3.2016. After the case was committed, the petitioner submitted an application before the learned Sessions Judge, Jalore claiming that he was a juvenile on the day of the occurrence with his date of birth being 7.7.1999 as entered in the Adarsh Govt. Sr. School, Baori, Jalore. A copy of the scholar register of the said school was also presented alongwith the application. The petitioner's father Shri Hadman Ram supported the application by an affidavit. The trial court conducted an inquiry into the averments made by the petitioner in his application. The Headmaster Kailash Chandra Joshi, who appeared in the court in connection with the inquiry, stated that no student by the name of Sujaram S/o Hadmana Ram had ever studied in the school but a boy named Sujanmal Meena S/o Hadman Ram resident of Baori had been admitted in the school and the entry of his admission was made at Sr.No.1664 of the scholar register Article-3. The student was admitted in the school on 15.7.2008 and his name was struck off because of prolonged absence. Adverting to the difference in names, the trial court proceeded to hold that the entry in the scholar register was not that of the petitioner's admission and rejected the application submitted by him for being declared as a juvenile vide order dated 30.5.2016 which is challenged in the instant revision. 4. Adverting to the difference in names, the trial court proceeded to hold that the entry in the scholar register was not that of the petitioner's admission and rejected the application submitted by him for being declared as a juvenile vide order dated 30.5.2016 which is challenged in the instant revision. 4. Shri K.S.Lodha learned counsel representing the petitioner drew the Court's attention to the scholar register Article-3 and urged that the petitioner's actual name is Sujanmal whereas his name of calling is Sujaram and that is why the discrepancy in names occurred while getting the petitioner admitted in the school. He urged that the fact that the petitioner is the person whose name appears at Sr.No.1664 of the said scholar register is duly verified from a very significant circumstance that the petitioner's sister Shobha and brother Suraj were also admitted in the very same school in the years 2000 and 2002 respectively and their names are entered on the very same page of the scholar register Article-3. The parents' name of all the three children are recorded as Smt.Rakmo and Hadmana Ram in the scholar register. 5. He thus urged that the trial court clearly erred in relying on the trivial discrepancy while rejecting the application filed on behalf of the petitioner for being declared as a juvenile. He urged that the prosecution, if it so desired could have led positive evidence to challenge the claim of the petitioner for being declared as a juvenile by proving that Hadmana Ram and Rukma have another son who goes by the name Sujanmal. However, no such evidence was led by the prosecution. He thus implored the Court to set aside the impugned order and to declare the petitioner to be a juvenile and send his case to the concerned Juvenile Justice Board for further proceedings. 6. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor as well as Shri Gulab Singh learned counsel representing the respondent complainant vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by the petitioner's counsel. They urged that the petitioner's name is clearly mentioned in the F.I.R. as well as in the charge-sheet as Sujaram. 7. The name of boy who was admitted in the Govt. School as per the scholar register filed alongwith the application filed on behalf of the petitioner is mentioned as Sujana Ram. They urged that the petitioner's name is clearly mentioned in the F.I.R. as well as in the charge-sheet as Sujaram. 7. The name of boy who was admitted in the Govt. School as per the scholar register filed alongwith the application filed on behalf of the petitioner is mentioned as Sujana Ram. He thus urged that as there is a stark dissimilarity in the name of the person, who was admitted in the school and the petitioner's name, apparently, the trial court was justified in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner to be declared as a juvenile. 8. I have heard and considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material available on record. 9. The application filed on behalf of the petitioner before the learned Sessions Judge was supported by an affidavit of his father Hadmana Ram wherein, it is clearly mentioned that the petitioner is called by the name Sujaram @ Sujanmal. If at all, the prosecution was desirous of challenging the petitioner's claim that he is also called by the said alias, it could have sought crossexamination of Hadmana Ram by summoning him in evidence. 10. The scholar register article-3 which was exhibited during the enquiry puts the entire controversy beyond the pale of doubt because on the very same page of the scholar register, names of three children of Hadmana Ram and Rakmo residents of village Baori are mentioned as Sujanmal, Shobha and Suraj. The prosecution has not come out with even a remote suggestion that Hadmana Ram and Rukmo whose three children were admitted in the said school are not the parents of the present petitioner. The prosecution did not even come out with a remotest suggestion that Hadmana Ram and Rukmo have another male child named Sujanmal. In view of these facts, this Court is of the firm opinion that the trial court misappreciated the evidence available on record and misdirected itself while adjudicating and rejecting the application filed on behalf of the petitioner for being declared to be a juvenile. The impugned order, ex-facie does not stand to scrutiny and hence, the same cannot be sustained. 11. Consequently, the revision deserves to be and is hereby allowed. The impugned order, ex-facie does not stand to scrutiny and hence, the same cannot be sustained. 11. Consequently, the revision deserves to be and is hereby allowed. The impugned order dated 30.5.2016 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Jalore in Cr.Case No.42/2016 arising out of F.I.R. 37/2016 registered at the P.S. Nosra is hereby quashed and set aside. The finding recorded by the trial court that the disputed scholar register entry does not relate to the petitioner is set aside. 12. It is held that the said entry pertains to the petitioner's admission in the school and that his date of birth is 7.7.1999. As, the offence took place on 26.3.2016, apparently the petitioner was less than 18 years of age on the date of the occurrence and is thus entitled to be treated as a juvenile within the meaning of Juvenile Justice Act on the date of the offence. The case of the petitioner shall be referred to the concerned Juvenile Justice Board for inquiry as per law. 13. Record be returned to the trial court forthwith.