Jitender @ Jitu v. State

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J

VEENA BIRBAL, J JUNE 03, 2011 SR

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on 03.06.2011 + CRL. M. A. 15749/2010 & CRL.A. 438/2010 JITENDER @ JITU … Appellant - versus - STATE … Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Appellant : Mr Ravindra Narayan For the Respondent : Mr Sanjay Lao CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE VEENA BIRBAL 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in Digest? Yes BADAR DURREZ AHMED 1. The present application under Section 7-A of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act") has been filed on behalf of the appellant Jitender @ Jitu claiming that he was a juvenile in conflict with law as defined in Section 2(l) of the said Act on the date of commission of the alleged offence, which was 19.08.2004. In short, the appellant contends that he was below the age of 18 years on the date of the incident and that he should be given the benefit of the provisions of the said Act. 2. By an order passed by the predecessor Bench on 26.11.2010, the Registrar Appellate (Judicial) was directed to conduct an enquiry as to whether the appellant was a juvenile on the date of the alleged commission of offence. This direction was given after the said Bench had noted that the date of birth of the appellant, as given in the family register of the appellant maintained by the Gram Panchayat, Manikpur, Block Achhaldha, Tehsil Vidhuna, District Auraiya, UP, was 09.10.1987. If that were to be correct, then the age of the appellant on the date of the incident would have been approximately 16 years and 10 months. 3. Although the predecessor Bench had directed that the enquiry be conducted and the report be furnished before the next date of hearing, which was 03.03.2011, we found that the said Registrar had not been able to achieve much progress in the matter and had fixed the next date of hearing on 05.05.2011, which was beyond the date on which the Court had directed the matter to be listed, that is, 03.03.2011. Consequently, we had directed that the concerned Block Development Officer should produce, through a duly authorized officer/ official, the original record pertaining to the family details of Jitender @ Jitu. We had directed issuance of notice to the appellant"s father Sh. Raj Kumar, son of Sh. Pati Ram, resident of 1844, Phase-3, JJ Cluster, Madanpur Khadar, Delhi-110076 to appear in person and produce whatever evidence and documents including any school certificate showing the date of birth of his son Jitender @ Jitu. 4. On 21.03.2011, one Mr Sravan Lal, the Village Development Officer of Village Naunik Pur, falling in Block Achhaldha, Tehsil Vidhuna, District Auraiya, UP appeared before us and he produced the original family register. A photocopy of page No. 46 of register No. II was taken on record and the original register, which had been seen by us, was returned to the said Village Development Officer. We found that insofar as the entry of the appellant Jitender @ Jitu in the said family register is concerned, there was some interpolation in the date of birth, although the same did reflect his date of birth as 09.10.1987. On that date, that is, on 21.03.2011, the appellant"s father Sh. Raj Kumar was also present in Court, as directed. He had stated that he was unable to produce any other evidence with regard to the age of his son. In these circumstances, we felt that it would be appropriate that an ossification test of the appellant Jitender @ Jitu be conducted. For this purpose, the Superintendent of the concerned jail was directed to take the appellant Jitender @ Jitu to All India Institute of Medical Sciences on 25.03.2011 in the first instance for the purposes of conduct of the ossification test and we had required that the report be submitted before the next date of hearing. 5. In compliance with ou