The learned Sessions Judge without going into the question whether the appellant was below 16 years of age on the date of the companymission of the offences, adverted only to the fact that the appellant was below 18 years of age at the relevant time and proceeded to follow the ratio in Bachey Lal v. State of U.P. 1956 SCC Crl 599 and awarded the lesser sentence of imprisonment for life instead of the extreme penalty of death sentence.
The Sessions Judge was permitted to have the appellant examined by the Chief Medical Officer of the State and liberty was given to the parties to adduce evidence regarding the age of the appellant.
The appellant did number place any other material before the Sessions Judge except the school certificate to prove that he had number companypleted 16 years on the date of the companymission of the offences.
The Sessions Judge, after companysidering the medical certificate and the school certificate has sent a report on 1 6 1987 stating that the appellant appeared to be about 28 29 years of age which means that the appellant would have companypleted 16 years on the date of occurrence.
In support of his companytention that he was less than 16 years of age on 3 10 1975, that being the date of the companymission of the offences for which the appellant has been companyvicted along with others, the appellant relies upon a school certificates Annexure B wherein his date of birth is shown as 24 7 1960.
Natarajan, J. Leave granted.
The Chief Medical Officer, Bareilly gave a certificate that as per radiological examination and physical features, the appellant appeared to be 30 years of age on 30.4.1987.
