AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Jasbir Singh, J.
Criminal Misc. No. 29921 of 2013
In view of the reasons mentioned in the application, it is allowed and a delay of 130 days in filing the appeal stands condoned.
Criminal Misc. No. A-309-MA of 2013
Respondent-Raj Kumar was arrayed as an accused in FIR No. 23 dated 20.3.2011 for commission of offences under Sections 302 /34 IPC, Police Station Baragudha. His application to claim benefit of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (in short "the Act") was dismissed by the trial Court by taking note of entries made, qua his date of birth, in the birth certificate issued by the competent authority. When doing so, the entry made in the matriculation certificate, showing age of the above said person as 9.11.1993 was rejected. He went in appeal which was allowed vide order under challenge. The Appellate Court has elaborately discussed the issue and the proposition of law involved and rightly said that as per the provisions of Rule 12(3)(b) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, to determine age of the accused to get benefit of the above said provision, in the first instance, reference has to be made to the matriculation or equivalent certificate. To say that respondent was a juvenile on the date of commission of offence i.e. 20.3.2011 reliance was placed upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Hari Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan and Another, .
We feel that no case is made out to cause interference in this case. Dismissed.