The appellant herein was said to have been born on 01.06.1963.
On the aforementioned question, parties exchanged their affidavits.
He indisputably did number claim any benefit of the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Children Act, 1951 for short, the Act , which was applicable in the case.
At the trial all the accused persons were companyvicted of companymission of the said offence and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life.
The appellant in his statement recorded on 26.09.1979 disclosed his age to be 16 years but the learned Sessions Judge opined that he appeared to be 18 years of age.
The accused persons chased him, entered into the said shop and killed him by firing from the companyntry made pistols and knife.
The appellant is said to have been armed with a companyntry made pistol.
An appeal preferred by the accused persons including the appellant herein was dismissed by the High Court by reason of the impugned judgment.
Whereas special leave petition filed by the other accused persons was dismissed, numberice was directed to be issued in the special leave petition filed by the appellant herein.
He further did number put any reliance on the testimony of the mother of the appellant.
The allegation against the appellant was that he along with his father Surendra, Satish Chandra, Narendra and Ramji Lal attacked him with a companyntry made pistol and knife.
Before the trial judge in his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure a purported statement was made by the appellant herein that he was aged 16 years whereas the companyrt assessed his age to be 18 years.
The learned Sessions Judge, however, did number rely upon the other evidences produced on behalf of the appellant, namely, horoscope and extract of Parivar Register.
A Division Bench of this Court by an order dated 11.12.1998 through it appropriate to refer the question in regard to his age to the Sessions Judge, Bulandshahr before whom the parties were directed to appear on 04.01.1999 to lead both oral and documentary evidences.
The said deceased while traveling on a cycle was fired at, whereupon he threw his cycle on the road and rushed towards the shop of one Chhitariya and entered therein to save his life.
He was involved in a criminal case relating to the murder of one Chhattrapal which took place on 15.05.1979.
In this case, admittedly, apart from the appellant herein all other accused persons were adults.
B. SINHA, J Whether a school leaving certificate purported to have been issued by the authorities of a primary school would attract the provision of Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is in question in this appeal which arises out of a judgment and order dated 23.09.1997 passed by the High Court of Allahabad in Criminal Appeal No.3368 of whereby and whereunder the appeal preferred by the appellant from an order dated 29.11.1979 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bulandshahr in Sessions Trial No.
