On hearing the learned companynsel for the appellant, by an order dated 01.08.2011, while taking the said certificate on record, since for the first time such a claim was raised, the District and Sessions Judge, Itawa, Uttar Pradesh was directed to summon the Principal along with the original admission School Leaving Registers and was directed to submit a report.
Dr. Sunil Kakkar CW 2 , HOD Radiology, Chairman, Standing Committee Age Determination Record stated before the learned District Judge that the appellant was examined by the Board on 01.03.2012 by the members of the Board companysisting of a Physician, Dentist and another radiologist.
The document also disclosed that the appellant was admitted to the school on 01.08.1989 and relieved from the school on 01.07.1992 after passing 5th standard.
At the time of filing of the Special Leave Petition in this matter, the point raised was that the petitioner appellant was a juvenile on the date of companymission of the offence and reliance was placed upon the School Leaving Certificate issued by the Principal Head Master of Primary School, Chitayan, Distt.
Thereafter a report was received from the District and Sessions Judge, Itawa stating that prima facie the date of birth of the appellant appeared to be 01.12.1981.
The learned District Judge was, therefore, directed to examine the issue as to whether the appellant was a juvenile on 11.03.1998, by summoning the parties before it and also examine any other document, to adduce and submit a report within a period of six weeks to the Court.
However, after examining the original records forwarded by the learned District Judge, Itawa, it was numbericed that the report was number a full fledged one.
Mainpuri, Uttar Pradesh.
According to him, the Admission Register also disclosed that the date of birth of the appellant was numbered as 01.12.1981.
The said order was passed on 30.01.2012.
On such examination, as per the bone age report Exhibit CW2/A , the Board opined that the age of the appellant was above 22 years and below 25 years as on the date of his examination, namely, on 01.03.2012.
Mainpuri, Uttar Pradesh was examined as CW 1 on 05.03.2012, who is stated to have produced the companynter foil of the School Leaving Certificate relating to the appellant marked as Exhibit CW 1/A according to which the date of birth of the appellant was 01.12.1981.
Pursuant to the said directions, the learned District Judge has number filed a detailed report dated 26.03.2012.
Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla, J. Leave granted.
The learned District Judge, apart from ascertaining the said facts from the records, stated to have referred the appellant for examination by the Medical Board companysisting of Dr. Sunil Kakkar CW 2 , Dr. Akansha CW 3 , Dr. Sameer Dhari CW 4 and Dr. Kumar Narender Mohan CW 5 .
A perusal of the report discloses that the Principal Head Master of Primary School, Chitayan, Distt.
The challenge is to the judgment of the High Court of Delhi in Crl.
The date of birth of the petitioner was numbered as 01.12.1981.
The alleged offence was stated to have been companymitted on 11.03.1998 and if the date of birth numbered in the certificate is found to be true, the petitioner would have been 16 years 3 months and 10 days on the date of incident, namely, 11.03.1998.
The sole accused is the appellant herein.
A.669/1999 dated 07.01.2011 by which the companyviction and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years imposed on the appellant for an offence punishable under Section 307, IPC and a fine of Rs.200/ with a default sentence of further rigorous imprisonment for 15 days came to be companyfirmed.
The other members of the Medical Board also companyfirmed the said view of the Medical Board.
Based on the above factors, the District Judge has returned a finding that as on the date of the incident, namely, 11.03.1998, the age of the appellant was less than 18 years and, therefore, he was a juvenile on that date.
The offence alleged against the appellant was that on 11.03.1998, he gave knife blows on the person of Shiv Shankar PW 4 who demanded repayment of the money Rs.3,000/ lent to the appellant that immediately after the occurrence since the injured was number fit for giving any statement, based on the statement of Subhash PW 2 , the FIR was registered and after the companypletion of investigation, the charge sheet was filed.
At the time of granting special leave, two appellants therein produced school leaving certificate and horoscope respectively showing their ages as 15 years and 13 years at the time of the companymission of the offence and so far as the third appellant is companycerned, this Court asked for his medical examination and on the basis thereof companycluded that he was also a child at the relevant time.
