CRR No. 1048 of 2017 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 115 CRR No. 1048 of 2017 (O&M) Date of decision: 22.07.2026 Samsuddin ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present:- Mr. Sarfaraj Hussain, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. A. K. Khubbar, Addl. A.G., Haryana. Ms. Rosi, Advocate for respondent No. 2. MANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral) 1. The instant revision petition has been filed by the petitioner for setting aside the order dated 11.11.2016, passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mewat in case arising out of FIR No. 115 dated 22.03.2015, registered under Sections 364, 302, 201 read with Section 120-B of IPC at Police Station Nuh, whereby respondent No. 2 was declared a juvenile and direction was given to submit separate challan qua respondent No. 2 before the Juvenile Justice Board, Mewat. 2. Brief facts of the case relevant for the purpose of disposal of this petition are that the aforementioned FIR was initially registered under Section 364 of IPC on the basis of a written complaint submitted by the present petitioner alleging therein that his nephew Imran Khan, who worked as a driver for one Ashok Kumar, had gone missing and the complainant suspected that he had been abducted and murdered by someone. During the course of MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.07.24 16:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR No. 1048 of 2017 (O&M) -2- investigation, accused Rahul Puri and Vijay @ Neeraj were arrested on 25.03.2015, who admitted their involvement in the commission of offence of murder of the victim. Subsequently, respondent No. 2 and Inderpal Chaudhary were nominated as accused in this case. Inderapal Chaudhary was arrested on 26.03.2015. Respondent No. 2 admitted his involvement in the crime and in pursuance of his disclosure statement, he got recovered a knife used at the time of commission of subject crime, whereas Rahul Puri got recovered a bank passbook and registration certificate (RC) of vehicle belonging to the deceased/victim. After completion of investigation, challan was presented against respondent No. 2 along with co-accused Vijay @ Neeraj, Rahul Puri and Inderpal Chaudhary. 3. Respondent No. 2 moved an application for declaring him a juvenile, which was allowed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mewat by passing the impugned order dated 11.11.2016. Feeling aggrieved from the said order, the present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner/complainant. 4. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law as while passing the same, the learned trial Court did not apply its judicious mind and passed a non-speaking and cryptic order. The documents produced on record by respondent No. 2 were not got verified through the police. They were believed as presented by respondent No. 2. The documents placed on record as Annexures AW-2/A and AW-2/C, which are copies of birth certificate and birth register issued by the office of Sub-Registrar, Births and Deaths, Damoh, Madhya Pradesh, respectively, were MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.07.24 16:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR No. 1048 of 2017 (O&M) -3- issued only on 02.05.2016 i.e. after lodging of the FIR of this case but the said fact had totally been ignored. These documents were not sufficient to prove with authenticity that the date of birth of respondent No. 2 was 17.05.1998 and he was a juvenile at the time of occurrence. It is, therefore, argued that the impugned order is liable to be set aside, the petition deserves to be accepted and respondent No. 2 is liable to be declared an adult and to face trial as such. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 has argued that there is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order, which is a well reasoned one. The mother of respondent No. 2 had appeared as AW-1 and had deposed that his date of birth was 17.05.1998. Her testimony has remained uncontroverted and then stands substantiated from the testimony of AW-2 Sita Ram Patel, Secretary in the office of Sub-Registrar, Births and Deaths, Gram Panchayat Semra, showing that the date of birth of respondent No. 2 was 17.05.1998. Hence, it is argued that the revision petition, being devoid of any merit, is liable to be dismissed. 6. This Court has heard the rival submissions. 7. Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 (for short ‘Rules, 2007’) prescribes procedure to be followed when claim of juvenility of an accused is raised before any court. As per Rule 12 (3) of the Rules, 2007, in every case concerning a child or juvenile in conflict with law, the age determination inquiry shall be conducted by the Court or the Board or, as the case may be, the Child Welfare Committee by seeking evidence by obtaining :- (a) (i) the matriculation or equivalent certificates, if MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.07.24 16:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR No. 1048 of 2017 (O&M) -4- available; and in the absence whereof; (ii) the date of birth certificate from the school (other than a play school) first attended; and in the absence whereof; (iii) the birth certificate given by a corporation or a municipal authority or a panchayat; 8. It is clear from the above that firstly, preference is to be given to the matriculation certificate or equivalent certificate and in the absence whereof, the date of birth certificate from the school first attended and in the absence whereof, the birth certificate given by a corporation, municipal authority or a panchayat. 9. The moot question to be determined by this Court is as to whether respondent No. 2 was a juvenile on the date of occurrence i.e.22.03.2015 or not? 10. In order to prove the claim of his juvenility, respondent No. 2 examined two witnesses i.e. his mother Genda Rani as AW-1, who deposed that the date of birth of his son/respondent No. 2 was 17.05.1998. During cross- examination, it was admitted by her that the date of birth of respondent No.2 was not got recorded by her in the birth register maintained by the village chowkidar or in any government record, though, she deposed about giving information about the birth of respondent No. 2 to the SHO concerned. She admitted that the date of birth of her son was got registered as on 02.05.2016 before the competent authority and that she had not given any proof of date of birth to the Gram Panchayat of her village. 11. Further, respondent No. 2 examined Sita Ram, Secretary in the office of Sub-Registrar concerned as AW-2, who produced Ex. AW-2/A, copy MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.07.24 16:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR No. 1048 of 2017 (O&M) -5- of birth certificate of respondent No. 2. He admitted that no proof of date of birth of respondent No.2 from the office of Tehsildar had been produced nor any affidavit of his mother or certificate issued by the village chowkidar had been obtained prior to preparing the said birth certificate. He also admitted that the date of registration as mentioned in this certificate was 02.05.2016. Though, this witness also placed on record Ex. AW-2/B, copy of an order passed by the Executive Magistrate, Damoh, MP, for recording date of birth of respondent No.2 as 17.05.1998 but it was admitted by him that it was not revealed from this order as to what document had been taken into consideration while granting sanction for making entry in the relevant register of births. Neither any matriculation certificate nor any date of birth certificate from the school first attended by the respondent No. 2 had been produced on record. 12. Now, it is to be considered as to whether any authenticity can be attached to the certificate Ex. AW-1/A, which is a copy of birth certificate of respondent No.2 issued by the Sub-Registrar concerned? It is apparent from the record that in the record of the Sub Registrar concerned, the entry regarding date of birth of respondent No.2 had been firstly made only on 02.05.2016 i.e. only after 18 years of the time when the respondent No.2 had born as per his claim. This entry was got done after a gap of about 01 year and 02 months from the date of registration of the FIR. It is clear from the testimonies of AW-1 and AW- 2 that no other document had been produced which could be relied upon for the purpose of recording the date of birth of respondent No.2 as 17.05.1998. As such, it cannot be stated with authenticity that the entries made in the record of the Sub-Registrar concerned were genuine and correct declaration of date of MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.07.24 16:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR No. 1048 of 2017 (O&M) -6- birth of respondent No. 2. It is worth mentioning here that as per Section 13 sub- section (3) of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969, if any birth or death which has not been registered within one year of its occurrence, shall be registered only on an order made by a Magistrate of the first class or a Presidency Magistrate after verifying the correctness of the birth or death and on payment of the prescribed fee. Further, as per Rule 9(3) of Haryana Govt. Notification dated 11.10.2010 bearing No. S.O.87/C.A.18/1969/S.30/2002, whereby Haryana Registration of Births and Deaths Rules, 2002 had come into effect, it is prescribed that wherein birth or death has not been registered within one year of its occurrence, the same shall be registered on an application made to the District Registrar or shall be registered only on an order of the Magistrate of first class. 13. In the instant case, though on a perusal of Ex. AW-2/B, it is revealed that an order had been passed by the Executive Magistrate, Damoh for recording the date of birth of respondent No. 2 as 17.05.1998, however, there is nothing on record suggest as to which document had been relied upon by the Registrar concerned while passing the said order. Moreso, this order is only a photocopy. In view of the discussion made above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the authenticity of the contents of the birth certificate relied upon by respondent No.2 has not been established on the basis of such material which can be relied upon to prove that in fact he was born on 17.05.1998. After excluding this certificate from consideration, no other material is available on record to show that respondent No. 2 was in fact born on 17.05.1998. The well settled proposition of law is that when the claim of juvenility of an accused is MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.07.24 16:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR No. 1048 of 2017 (O&M) -7- allowed on a single piece of document. The Court must carefully examine the issue of genuineness and correctness of such document, lest juvenility becomes a escape route to avoid justice, that each offender must otherwise be brought to. The claim of juvenility, lacking in credibility or a frivolous claim or plainly absurd or inherently improbable claim has to be rejected by the Courts at the threshold. Reliance in this regard can be had to the observations made in Criminal Revision No. 3188 of 2017, titled as Irfan v. State of U.P. and others, decided on 24.09.2018 by the High Court of Allahabad. 14. Further, respondent No. 2 is accused of a grave and heinous offence. He is shown to have raised claim as to his juvenility on the basis of a document, which was registered after a gap of about 01 year and 02 months from the lodging of the FIR. As already discussed, no material has been produced on record by respondent No.2 at the time of producing evidence to show that his date of birth was 17.05.1998. On the basis of the entry made in the office of Sub-Registrar concerned as on 02.05.2016, it cannot be assumed that such entry was correct. It is well settled proposition of law that when in a case of grave and heinous offence, an accused attempts to take statutory shelter under the guise of being a minor, a casual or cavalier approach while recording as to whether an accused is a juvenile or not cannot be permitted. In Parag Bhati v. State of U.P. 2016(2) RCR (Criminal) 231, it was held that the Court are enjoined upon to perform their duties with the object of protecting the confidence of common man in the institution entrusted with the administration of justice. The benefit of the principles of benevolent legislation attached to the Act, 2015 would thus apply to only such cases wherein the accused is held to be MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.07.24 16:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR No. 1048 of 2017 (O&M) -8- a juvenile on the basis of at least prima facie evidence regarding his minority as the benefit of possibilities of two view in regard to the age of the alleged accused who is involved in a grave and serious offence which he committed and gave effect to it in a well-planned manner reflecting his maturity of mind rather than innocence indicating that his plea of juvenility is more in nature of a shield to dodge or dupe the arms of law, cannot be allowed to come to his rescue. 15. 15. Undoubtedly, it is a well-settled principle of law that a hyper- technical approach should not be adopted while appreciating the evidence adduced on behalf of the accused in support of the plea that he was a juvenile, and if two views are possible on the same evidence, the Court should lean in favour of holding the accused to be a juvenile in borderline cases. However, it is equally well settled that the Court cannot also be oblivious that, being a beneficial legislation, it is required to be seen that the juvenile derives the full benefit of the Juvenile Justice Act, but it is imperative that the Court should ensure that the provisions of the Act are not misused by unscrupulous persons to escape punishment after committing a serious offence. Reliance in this regard can be place upon the authority cited as Arnit Das v. State of Bihar, (2000) 5 SCC 428. 16. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the considered view that the learned trial Court fell into a patent error in accepting the claim of juvenility merely on the basis of the birth certificate and allied entries, without examining their genuineness, source and evidentiary worth in the manner contemplated under the Act, 2000. The documentary evidence relied upon by respondent No. 2 came into existence only after the registration of the MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.07.24 16:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR No. 1048 of 2017 (O&M) -9- FIR and the relevant entries were admittedly incorporated nearly eighteen years after his birth without disclosing the foundational material on the basis of which such entries were made. The testimony of the official witness further demonstrates that no contemporaneous record or independent proof of birth had been verified before recording the entry. Consequently, the said documents do not inspire confidence and could not have been made the sole basis for returning a finding of juvenility. In the absence of any reliable and legally admissible material establishing the date of birth of respondent No. 2, the finding recorded by the learned trial Court cannot be sustained. 17. Accordingly, the present revision petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 11.11.2016 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mewat, declaring respondent No. 2 to be a juvenile, is hereby set aside. The interim order dated 08.08.2018, wherein the passing of final order was stayed, is hereby vacated. The learned trial Court shall proceed with the trial in accordance with law. 22.07.2026 (MANISHA BATRA) Waseem R. Ansari Waseem R. Ansari Waseem R. Ansari Waseem R. Ansari JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.07.24 16:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document