BITTU RAM @ MITHU RAM v. STATE OF PUNJAB

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Mr. Animesh Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Mr. Manoj Bajaj, Addl.AG, Punjab. AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) Challenge in this petition is to order dated 10.8.2009, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, whereby application filed on behalf of Bittu Ram, claiming to be a minor, for separate trial, has been rejected. The facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that the petitioner was married to Amro Devi, sometime in March, 2008. Amro Devi died under unnatural circumstances on 25.5.2008, whereupon FIR came to be lodged the same day viz. FIR No.53 dated 25.5.2008 under Sections 304-B, 120-B, 148, 149, Indian Penal Code, Police Station Ghagga, District Patiala. In the FIR, the name of the accused/husband of Amro Devi has been mentioned as Criminal Rev. No.2291 of 2009 2 Bittu Ram son of Inder Ram son of Pala Ram. In the entire material collected during investigation, the name continued to be mentioned as Bittu Ram.

Needless to say that the petitioner was produced before the Magistrate during the said period, however, it was not pleaded at any stage that the petitioner was a juvenile in conflict with law, who had not completed 18 years of age. On completion of investigation, the challan was presented on 8.9.2008. Charges were framed on 15.10.2008 in the presence of the petitioner and his counsel. The petitioner gave out his age as 19 years. It seems that on 3.2.2009, an application was filed on behalf of the petitioner, claiming separate trial. It has been pleaded that the petitioner was born on 8.8.1994 and, therefore, on the date of the incident, was aged about 13 years 9 months. On filing of the application, the petitioner was allowed to lead evidence. On consideration of the evidence, vide the impugned order, it has been concluded that the documents relied upon on behalf of the petitioner did not indicate the basis on which the date of birth was recorded.

The documents produced show that one Mithu Ram was born on 8.8.1994. No evidence worthy of belief was led so as to show that the petitioner was also known by the name of Mithu Ram. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in this criminal revision petition, contends that the veracity of the documents having not been questioned by the court, it was imperative for it to conclude that the petitioner was known by the name of Mithu Ram and, therefore, he was born on 8.8.1994. Reference has been made to Rule 12 of the Juvenile Criminal Rev. No.2291 of 2009 3 Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 (for short 'the Rules'), to say that it was for the court to call for evidence once the issue had been raised on behalf of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied on Ration Card (Annexure P-2) and the record produced before the trial court from A.G.S. Centre under Primary School, Nawan Pind, Kalwanoo (Annexure P-4).

Learned counsel for the respondent-State has pointed out that at the stage of bail itself, the issue of juvenility is raised to claim the concession of bail. In the case in hand, it is much after framing of charges that the issue has been raised. It has also been pleaded on behalf of the respondent that there is no evidence to indicate that it was the petitioner who was born on 8.8.1994. I have considered the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties. Ration Card (Annexure P-2) indicates that Inder Ram son of Pala Ram had three issues; namely, Bittu, Samitro Devi and Birbal Dass. Bittu son of Inder Ram is mentioned at serial No.4. Annexure P-4 i.e. the document from the School, indicates at serial No.12, Mithu Ram to have been born on 8.8.1994. In my considered opinion, the documents have been considered by the trial court and it has been concluded, for the right reasons, that the documents when read in conjunction, would not establish the case of the petitioner, as pleaded.

The Ration Card (Annexure P-2) does not give the date of birth, which is in the name of Bittu. The school record indicates Mithu Ram Criminal Rev. No.2291 of 2009 4 was born on 8.8.1994. The entire investigation file shows that the accused was Bittu Ram. At no point in time, till the framing of charges, had it been pleaded that the petitioner was also known as Mithu Ram. Documentary evidence to show that Mithu Ram was also known as Bittu Ram has not been produced. The other evidence has not been found to be trustworthy. I have also considered the fact that deceased-Amro Devi has been shown to be aged 18/19 years in the post-mortem report. In this part of the country, ordinarily, a boy marries a girl, who is younger in age. The petitioner, at the point in time when marriage took place, was a little over 13 years of age. I have also considered the fact that during the course of proceedings of investigation and, subsequently, the petitioner appeared before the Magistrate and the trial court a number of times.

A child of 13 years 9 months perceivably would be younger to a person of 19 years. If the petitioner perceivably was less than 14 years of age when produced before the court, surely, the court would have taken notice of this fact and would have proceeded to have an inquiry conducted in regard to the age of the petitioner. As against this, it was the petitioner who declared his age at every stage of proceedings to be 19 years, including at the stage of framing of charges. Under these circumstances, I do not find any reason to interfere with the findings recorded by the trial court. So far as reference to Rule 12 of the Rules is concerned, because the petitioner did not raise the issue of juvenility at any stage since 25.5.2008 i.e. the date of registration of the FIR, till after framing of charges, there was no occasion for the court to invoke the provisions of Criminal Rev. No.2291 of 2009 5 Rule 12 of the Rules.

To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?