@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
V.M. Jain, J.@mdashThis is a petition dated 2-11-2001 u/s 482, Cr. P.C. filed by the accused-petitioner, seeking the quashment of the order dated 6-4-1998, passed by the Juvenile Court, copy Annexure P-2 and also seeking the quashment of the order dated 23-11-1998, copy Annexure P-3, passed by the Sessions Judge, dismissing the appeal of the accused-petitioner and up-holding the order dated 6-4-1998 passed by the learned Juvenile Court.
2. The learned counsel for the accused-petitioner has submitted before me that in view of the birth certificate Ex. A1, the accused-petitioner was a juvenile on the date of the alleged occurrence and as such he should have been declared as a juvenile.
3. However, I find no force in this submission of the learned counsel for the accused-petitioner. The alleged occurrence had taken place on 23-4-1997, for which FIR No. 51 dated 24-4-1997 u/s 302, IPC was registered in Police Station East, Chandigarh. It was much after the commission of the crime that Joginder Lal (Pal) filed an application for making an entry in the birth register regarding the birth of his son Manjyoti (accused-petitioner), alleging therein that his son Manjyoti was born on 2-10-1981. After obtaining the report from the Patwari and the Kanungo, the Sub Divisional Magistrate, passed the orders on 13-11-1997 for making an entry in the birth register about the birth of accused-petitioner Manjyoti having taken place on 2-10-1981. It was on the basis of this birth entry that the accused-petitioner was seeking a verdict from the Juvenile Court that in fact he was juvenile on the date of occurrence. However, as referred to above, the learned Junevile court, vide order dated 6-4-1998, copy annexure P-2 did not place any reliance on the said birth entry and after considering the other material available on the record including the ossification test came to the conclusion that accused-petitioner Manjyoti was not a Juvenile on the date of the commission of the offence. The appeal filed by the accused-petitioner against the said order of the Juvenile Court, was also dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge on 23-11-1998, copy Annexure P-3. The learned Sessions Judge also did not place any reliance on the birth entry of the accused-petitioner, which had come into existence much after the commission of the crime. The learned Sessions Judge also placed reliance on other material on the record, including ossification test and came to the conclusion that the accused-petitioner was not a juvenile and accordingly, the order of the Juvenile Court was up-held and the appeal was dismissed.
4. So far as the present petition u/s 482 Cr. P.C. is concerned, the same has been filed by the accused-petitioner after almost three years of the passing of the order dated 23-11-1998, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, dismissing the appeal and up-holding the order of the Juvenile Court and holding that the accused-petitioner was not a juvenile. No explanation whatsoever has come on the record to explain the delay of almost three years in filing the present petition u/s 482, Cr. P.C. and challenging the orders passed by the Courts below.
5. Furthermore, both the Courts below had given a categorical finding that the accused-petitioner was not a juvenile, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case. No reliance was placed on the birth entry, keeping in view that the same had come into the existence much after the commission of the crime, I find no illegality or irregularity in the orders passed by the Courts below, which may require interference by this Court in the present petition u/s 482, Cr. P.C. The authority
It cannot be forgotten that the occurrence took place much later, say 10 years. It could not have been expected on the date when the entry was made that the appellant would claim benefit thereof on the commission of some offence. That entry is not. alone but added thereto is the LIC policy and the matriculation certificate likewise mentioning the date of birth of the appellant being 19-11-1972.
6. So far as the present case is concerned, as referred to above, the birth entry in question came into exisence much after the commission of the offence. Furthermore, except the oral evidence, there is nothing else on the record to show that the accused-petitioner was born on 2-10-1981 or that he was a juvenile at the relevant, time. On the other hand, the Courts below placing reliance on the ossification test came to the conclusion that accused-petitioner Manjyoti was not a juvenile. Furthermore, reliance had also been placed on the copy of the statement made by accused-petitioner Manjyoti as a prosecution witness in a Sessions trial in which he had given his age as 21 years on the date when he had appeared as a witness i.e. 4-11-1996 in the said Sessions case.
7. In my opinion, the Courts below had rightly come to the conclusion that no reliance could be placed on the birth entry in question and on the basis of the said birth entry, the accused-petitioner could not be declared as a juvenile.
8. In view of my detailed discussion above, in my opinion, there is no merit in this petition and the same is hereby dismissed.
