Court dismissed a petition seeking quashing of an order maintaining the petitioner as an adult. It upheld the trial court's rejection of a later date of birth due to lack of cogent evidence, relying on the first school's attendance report.
Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. dismissed; petitioner at liberty to move Trial Court if cogent document emerges.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$-18 *** IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI**
DECIDED ON : 5th FEBRUARY, 2016
+ CRL.M.C.689/2015 & CRL.M.A.No.2617/2015
DEEPAK @ RANJAN
..... Petitioner
Through : Mr.Jitender Nath Pathak, Advocate with Mr.Durga Dutt, Advocate.
versus
STATE & ANR.
..... Respondents
Through : Mr.Amit Gupta, APP.
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG
S.P.Garg, J. (Oral)
Crl.M.C.689/2015
Page 1 of 5
Act PS Ashok Vihar. During committal proceedings before the Trial Court, the petitioner / accused claimed that he was juvenile on the date of offence i.e. 17.09.2013. A detailed enquiry was conducted and vide order dated 07.12.2013, the Trial Court was of the view that the petitioner was not juvenile on the date of occurrence. The petitioner challenged the said order in revision unsuccessfully.
in the said school till 5th standard and date of withdrawal recorded is
Crl.M.C.689/2015
Page 2 of 5
29.03.2006. The genuineness and authenticity of these documents have not been suspected. These documents came into existence long back. For the purpose of enquiry, ossification test was also conducted and as per ossification report, petitioner’s age was determined in between 20 – 22 years as on 26.11.2013. Learned counsel for the petitioner emphasized that as per the matriculation certificate on record date of birth of the petitioner was 05.09.1996. It was, however, not elaborated / explained as to how two different dates of birth surfaced in two different schools’ records. Nothing has emerged to ascertain as to for how many years the petitioner studied in BSHSS Raypur Kuhikala Jaunpur (U.P.). No evidence has come to infer as to when the petitioner got admission in the said school and what date of birth was recorded therein at the time of initial admission. Since the petitioner had studied from 1st to 5th standard in Delhi, there is possibility of the petitioner to have taken admission in 6th standard in the said school. The petitioner did not summon the relevant record from the said school to prove as to when he took admission there and what date of birth was recorded on the basis of any birth certificate or
other document there. The certificate containing date of birth 05.09.1996 is a Certificate-Cum-Mark-Sheet issued by the Board of High School and
Intermediate Education, U.P. on 10.06.2011.
Crl.M.C.689/2015
Page 3 of 5
date of incident.
Crl.M.C.689/2015
Page 4 of 5
made clear that if the petitioner comes across any cogent document about
his date of birth as 05.09.1996 he will be at liberty to move the Trial Court
to claim juvenility.
(S.P.GARG) JUDGE
FEBRUARY 05, 2016 / tr
Crl.M.C.689/2015
Page 5 of 5
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the quo warranto petition maintaining the age of the accused as a juvenile on the date of offence framed in conformity with the Delhi Juvenile Rules 2009.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Deepak @ Ranjan
State
S.P. Garg
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
