Police use years old birth application to defy juvenile claim

JAMMU/SRINAGAR: A ‘PERUSAL’ OF THE DATE OF BIRTH OF THE TWO ELDER CHILDREN SHOWS A DIFFERENCE OF TWO MONTHS AND 28 DAYS

An application filed by a father 14 years ago to register the birth of his three children is the centrepiece of the Jammu and Kashmir police’s plea that the juvenile accused in the rape and murder of an eightyear-old in Kathua be tried as an adult and not a minor.

The Crime Branch of the state police, which has contested the trial court’s decision to treat the ‘juvenile’ as a minor has annexed the application in its petition before the Jammu and Kashmir High Court, officials said.

The application is riddled with careless mistakes and raised doubts about its veracity, they said. The report of a medical board of experts, which determines the age of the juvenile, one of the eight accused in the case, as not less than 19 and not more than 23, has also been attached.

The court will hear the matter on June 6. According to the petition, the application filed by the father in the tehsildar’s office in Hiranagar in Jammu province on April 15, 2004 makes for “interesting” reading and has “imaginary” entries.

The father has asked for a birth certificate for his eldest, a boy, whose date of birth is stated as November 23, 1997, his daughter, said to be born on February 21, 1998, and the youngest, the Kathua accused, on October 23, 2002, it says.

A “perusal” of the date of birth of the two elder children reveals a difference of two months and 28 days, “which by any medical standard is impossible”, it states.

This, it says, indicates a casual approach adopted by the father in furnishing the particulars of the dates of birth.

While no place of birth has been mentioned for the older two, the juvenile is said to be born in a Hiranagar hospital. But a subsequent investigation to test out the veracity of that statement did not bear that out, officials said.

A special investigation team sent a questionnaire to the block medical officer and asked for records of the juvenile’s birth and details about the parents. The officer replied that no delivery in the name of the juvenile’s mother took place on October 23, 2002, according to the affidavit.

The medical board, comprising specialists from different departments, had submitted a report based on various clinical tests and the physical appearance of the juvenile that he was not less than 19 and not more than 23.