Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 482 (RAJ)

Bhika v. State of Rajasthan

2020-03-05

ABHAY CHATURVEDI, SANDEEP MEHTA

body2020
JUDGMENT 1. Heard learned counsel representing the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record. 2. The instant appeal under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the appellant Bhikha being aggrieved of the Judgment dated 28.09.2015 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.4, Udaipur in Sessions Case No.82/2014 (Old No.321/2014) convicting and sentencing the appellant as below: Offences Sentences Fine Fine Default sentences Section 302 IPC Life Imprisonment Rs.5,000/- 02 Months' R.I. Section 4/25 of the Arms Act 2 Years' S.I. Rs.1,000/- 15 Days' S.I. 3. The matter came to be listed before this Court on 04.02.2020 for considering an application moved by the counsel for the appellant under Section 391 Cr.P.C. for bringing on record the school certificate of the appellant in support of the plea that he was a juvenile on the date of the incident i.e. 12.07.2014 and thus, his trial as an adult was illegal and vitiated as having been conducted contrary to the mandatory requirement of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 2000')- By order dated 04.02.2020, the application was accepted and the learned Public Prosecutor was directed to summon the original record pertaining to the petitioner's admission in the Rajkiya Shikshakarmi Prathmik Vidyalaya, Katmala, Police Station Kotda, District Udaipur from the Principal/ Authorised officer of the school so that evidence in support of the plea of juvenility could be recorded. 4. The matter was taken up on 04.03.2020 on which date, the learned Public Prosecutor, presented before us the original school record of the appellant through Shri Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi, Teacher Grade III of the Primary School Katmala. On a careful perusal of the original school record, it came to light that the appellant's date of birth was entered in the admission form and the result register as 20.05.1998. As per Section 35 of the Evidence Act and Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice Rules, the entry of age of a person recorded in the Government school viz. admission form, scholar register, etc. at the time of initial admission in the school is considered to be of prime evidentiary value unless otherwise proved. As per Section 35 of the Evidence Act and Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice Rules, the entry of age of a person recorded in the Government school viz. admission form, scholar register, etc. at the time of initial admission in the school is considered to be of prime evidentiary value unless otherwise proved. The learned Public Prosecutor himself produced the school record and did not dispute the genuineness and thus, these documents are admissible without requirement of any formal proof as per Section 294 Cr.P.C. Hence, the documents were taken on record and exhibited as Ex.C/1 and Ex.C/2 without recording any formal evidence in support thereof. In addition to being admissible under Section 294 Cr.P.C, these documents comprising of public record are also admissible in evidence by virtue of Sections 74 and 76 of the Evidence Act. As per Sections 2(k), 2(1) and 7A read with Section 20 of the Act of 2000 and Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice Rules, such school documents can be considered to be conclusive proof regarding age of the person concerned. Manifestly, the date of birth of the appellant was recorded as 20.05.1998 in the contemporaneous school certificate and as the offence took place on 12.07.2014, the appellant was just 16 years 1 month and 22 days of age on the date of commission of the offence. As per the above referred provisions of the Act of 2000, a juvenile who had not completed 18 years of age on the date of commission of the offence, is entitled to the benefit of Act of 2000. By order dated 04.03.2020, we have already concluded that the appellant was a juvenile on the date of the incident. Learned counsel Shri Deora placed reliance on the following judgments: (i) Pratap Singh vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr., reported in 1988 (Supp) SCC 604; (ii) Raju vs. The State of Haryana, reported in 2019 (4) SCALE 398 , and urged that trial of the present appellant conducted by the Sessions Court is vitiated and since by now, the appellant has crossed the age of 22 years, no action can be taken against him as per the Act of 2000. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor is not in a position to dispute the above factual and legal position. 6. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor is not in a position to dispute the above factual and legal position. 6. In this view of the matter and, since it has been conclusively established that the date of birth of the appellant was 20.05.1998 and he was aged 16 years 1 month and 22 days on the date of commission of the offence (12.07.2014), his case is fully covered by Sections 2(k) and 2(1) of the Act of 2000 which is applicable to him on all fours in light of Sections 7A and 20 of the Act of 2000. 7. Considering the fact that the appellant has spent almost 5 years and 8 months imprisonment and, as the maximum period for which a juvenile could have been sent to a special home under the Act of 2000 is three years as per Section 15(l)(g) of the Act of 2000, we hold that no fresh inquiry of the appellant is warranted in case at hand and he is entitled to be released from custody forthwith. 8. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment dated 28.09.2015 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No.4, Udaipur in Sessions Case No.82/2014 (Old No.321/2014) is hereby quashed and set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the charges. He is in custody and shall be released from prison forthwith if not wanted in any other case.