Crl. Appeal S 4 SB of 2017 {1}
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND
HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Crl. Misc. 38 and 40 of 2017 in/and
Crl. Appeal S 4 SB of 2017 (OM)
Date of decision: 7.8.2018
Karan @ Ghoni
…Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab
…Respondent
CORAM:- HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE JAISHREE THAKUR
Present: Mr. Hitesh Verma, Advocate,
for the applicant/appellant.
Ms. Rajni Gupta. Sr. DAG, Punjab.
JAISHREE THAKUR, J.
1. This is an appeal that has been filed against the impugned
judgment and order of sentence dated 13.10.2016 passed by the Additional
Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur in Sessions case No. 7 dated 24.3.2015, vide
which the appellant was convicted under Section 376 IPC and sentenced to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years.
2. In brief, the facts are that a statement was made by the
prosecutrix in which it was alleged that her date of birth was 7.10.2000 and
she was a student of 9th Class. It was further alleged that on 5.12.2014,
when she left her house for Gurudwara Shahidan, then the appellant herein
caught her and forcibly took her towards the Northern side of the road. She
raised noise and requested the appellant to let her go to but of no avail. It
1 of 7
12-08-2018 15:44:50 :::
Crl. Appeal S 4 SB of 2017 {2}
was further alleged that the appellant took her for about 1/2 kilometer away
and there committed the offence of rape. It was further alleged that on the
next day i.e. 6.12.2014 at about 5 p.m., she managed to escape and on
reaching her house, she disclosed the entire episode to her mother. It is on
these allegations that the FIR was registered and the appellant was arrested
on 8.12.2014. After completion of the investigation, the challan was
presented and since the offence was triable by the Sessions Court, the same
was committed by the Illaqa Magistrate to the Sessions Court.
3. The prosecution examined as many as 13 witnesses and after
closure of prosecution evidence, statement of the appellant under Section
313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded, in which he denied all
the allegations and pleaded innocence. The trial court, after going through
the record and hearing learned counsel for the parties, convicted the
appellant, as stated above.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant herein submits that during the
pendency of the trial itself, an application was filed for declaring the
appellant to be a juvenile. It was contended that his date of birth was
5.12.1997 and on the date when the alleged occurrence took place he was a
juvenile and, therefore, he should be treated as such. Vide order dated
8.9.2016 passed by the trial court, a Board of Doctors was constituted and
an opportunity was given to the appellant to produce evidence in support of
his claim of being a juvenile. On 17.9.2016 one witness was produced by
the appellant and an application was moved to summon the record from the
concerned department regarding his age. However, the trial court in a hasty
2 of 7
12-08-2018 15:44:50 :::
Crl. Appeal S 4 SB of 2017 {3}
manner declined the request of the appellant and closed his evidence, vide
order dated 19.9.2016, without appreciating the fact that the summoning of
record was necessary for determining the issue.
5. Against the said order, a Criminal Revision 3591 of 2016 was
filed but during the pendency of the revision petition closing the evidence of
the appellant, the trial court convicted him and resultantly, the revision
petition was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the appellant to take the
plea of juvenility while filing the appeal qua the judgment of conviction.
Consequently, the appellant, while filing the appeal, annexed his date of
birth certificate dated 17.10.2016 as Annexure A/1 which was taken on
record. By order dated 10.1.2017, the appeal stands admitted and notice in
the Criminal Misc. Nos. 38 and 40 of 2017, one for suspension of sentence
and another for declaring the appellant as juvenile respectively, was issued
for 21.2.2017.
6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant/appellant,
while assailing the judgment in appeal, contends that the Birth Certificate
dated 17.10.2016 has been issued by the Additional District Registrar,
Births and Deaths, Hoshiarpur, which would reflect that his date of birth
was recorded as 5.12.1997 and, therefore, on the date of the alleged
incident, the applicant/appellant was a juvenile and should have been treated
as such. It is also argued that since the appellant was a juvenile at that point
of time i.e. on the alleged date of occurrence, therefore, he was covered
under Section 15 (g) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of
Children ) Act, 2007 where the maximum sentence that could be awarded to
3 of 7
12-08-2018 15:44:50 :::
Crl. Appeal S 4 SB of 2017 {4}
a juvenile is three years and the appellant has already undergone a sentence
of 2 years, 2 months and 26 days, including remission of 15 days, as per the
custody certificate dated 18.7.2018 and, therefore, without assailing the
conviction, it is prayed that the sentence awarded to the appellant be
reduced to the period already undergone.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent–State submits
that the trial court, after appreciating the evidence brought on record, has
rightly convicted the appellant. She further submits that the application of
the applicant/appellant declaring him to be juvenile was rightly dismissed by
the trial court, while relying upon the report of the Board of Doctors so
constituted and as such, the application for declaring the applicant/appellant
as juvenile deserves to be dismissed.
8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties have also perused
the pleadings of the case.
9. As already noted, notice in the applications for suspension of
sentence and for declaring the applicant/appellant as juvenile was issued for
21.2.2017. By order dated 21.2.2017, this Court took notice of the
contention raised by the applicant/appellant that his date of birth is
5.12.1997 and that he was a juvenile at the time of alleged incident.
Consequently, a direction was given to the District Sessions Judge,
Hoshiarpur, to make an inquiry with respect of the said Birth Certificate and
submit a report in this regard. The report of the District Sessions Judge,
Hoshiarpur, has been received. During the inquiry by the District
Sessions Judge, statement of Bhupinder Singh Junior Assistant Office of
4 of 7
12-08-2018 15:44:50 :::
Crl. Appeal S 4 SB of 2017 {5}
Civil Surgeon, Hoshiarpur, was recorded and he deposed that in the original
Birth Register there is entry qua birth of Karan Sandhu son of Harmesh
Kumar showing place of birth Ghumiala, Police Station Mahilpur, at page
No. 233 against serial No. 12 dated 15.12.1997. Jaswinder Singh, Statistical
Assistant Office of the Civil Surgeon, Hoshiarpur, also deposed on the
similar lines.
10. The applicant/appellant was also summoned by the Court and
his statement was recorded, wherein he stated that he was born on 5.12.1997
in Village Ghumiala, District Hoshiarpur. He also produced birth certificate
bearing No. T-118334 dated 17.10.2016, while stating that he got the
certificate after making application to the office of the Chief Medical
Officer, Hoshiarpur. Dr. Sewa Singh, Additional District Registrar, Civil
Hospital, Hoshiarpur was also summoned who affirmed the date of birth of
the applicant/appellant, while narrating that the certificate was issued on an
application filed by one Mukesh Sandhu, who happens to be brother of the
applicant. A copy of the application was also produced on record.
11. Another statement was recorded of Jaswinder Singh,
Superintendent, who also stated that on 17.10.2016 Mukesh Sandhu had
filed an application for issuance of birth certificate of Karan Sandhu and on
perusal of the record, the said certificate was prepared. Statement of Dr.
G.S. Kapoor was also recorded about signing of the birth certificate after the
same had been perused.
12. After perusal of the statements that have been recorded, the
District Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur, came to the conclusion that there is
5 of 7
12-08-2018 15:44:50 :::
Crl. Appeal S 4 SB of 2017 {6}
possibility that the relevant entries in the register have been manipulated and
accordingly submitted the report. In the said report, the District Sessions
Judge, Hoshiarpur, took note of the fact that during the trial, the appellant
moved an application for conducting an inquiry qua his juvenility and on the
said application the trial court had directed the Chief Medical Officer,
Hoshiarpur, to constitute a Board of Directors so as to examine the
accused/appellant. His claim for being treated as juvenile was rejected
because at that time he had only relied on a ration card and had tendered in
evidence the certificate of the accused/appellant, which was singed by the
Head Teacher, Government Elementary School, Ghumiala, District
Hoshiarpur, reflecting his date of birth as 5.12.1995. The District
Sessions Judge formed an opinion that there could be possibility of
manipulation of the birth certificate.
13. Having perused the record and gone through the statements that
have been recorded, this Court finds it difficult to believe that all the public
servants, who were responsible for maintaining the record would either
manipulate or depose falsely to help the applicant/appellant. Responsible
officers like, Dr. Sewa Singh, Additional District Registrar, Civil Hospital,
Hoshiarpur and Jaswinder Singh, Superintendent of the office of Civil
Surgeon, Hoshiarpur, have, after verifying the original record, stated that
the date of birth as reflected on the record is 5.12.1997, as such the veracity
of such statements could not be doubted. Moreover, the date of birth
mentioned in the Birth Certificate is in consonance with the date mentioned
in the school leaving certificate.
6 of 7
12-08-2018 15:44:50 :::
Crl. Appeal S 4 SB of 2017 {7}
14. For the reasons afore-stated, Criminal Misc. 40 of 2017 is
allowed. The applicant/appellant is declared to be a juvenile on the date of
incident i.e. 5.12.2014, his date of birth being 5.12.1997.
15. Consequently, while upholding the impugned judgment of
conviction, the sentence awarded to the appellant is reduced to the period
already undergone by him because as terms of Section 15 (g) of the Juvenile
Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, the maximum sentence that
can be awarded to a juvenile for such incident is of three years.
16. The application as well as the appeal stand disposed of
accordingly.
7.8.2018 (JAISHREE THAKUR)
prem JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes
Whether reportable No
7 of 7
12-08-2018 15:44:50 :::