Holding

The appellant was not a child under s.2(4) of the U.P. Children Act, 1952 and therefore could not claim the protection of s.29.

Summary

Vinod Kumar, a college student, was convicted for leading a pre‑planned triple murder in 1973 and sentenced to life imprisonment under IPC s.302 read with s.149. He appealed, the High Court affirmed the conviction, and later obtained special leave to raise a belated claim that he was a child (under 16) at the time of the offence, invoking s.2(4) of the U.P. Children Act, 1952 and s.29 of the same Act. The appellant submitted affidavits and copies of a village register, high‑school certificate, electoral roll and a statement under CrPC s.313, all after the grant of leave. The Supreme Court held that these documents were of doubtful authenticity, that the appellant was not a child within the meaning of the Act, and that the High Court had not been denied a hearing on the age issue. Consequently, the benefit of s.29 could not be claimed and the conviction stood. The Court also censured the appellant and his counsel for making unfounded allegations against the High Court judges.

Issues considered

Whether the appellant was a child within the meaning of s.2(4) of the U.P. Children Act, 1952 at the time of the offence.
Whether the appellant was entitled to the benefit of s.29 of the U.P. Children Act, 1952.
Whether the High Court erred by not hearing the appellant on the question of his age.
Whether the documents produced after the grant of special leave could be relied upon to establish age.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 313, s. 374
Constitution of Indias. Article 136
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 149, s. 302
U.P. Children Act, 1952s. 2(4), s. 29

Subjects

child offenderU.P. Children Actage of criminal liabilityspecial leave petitionforged documentscontempt of courtcriminal appealtriple murderIPC 302IPC 149

Judgment

YINOD KUMAR
A
v.
I STATE OF U.P.

APRIL 21, 1987

[A.P. SEN. AND B.C. RAY, JJ.) B
' .
U.P. Children Act, 1952; ss, 2(4) & 29-College student took part
.,-· in triple murder~Documents filed in proof of age held of doubtful
authenticity-Appellant not child within the meaning of the provision.

Constitution of India, Article 136: Powers of the Court to take
' notice of an impropriety.
c
- ~ Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s. 374--Appeal-Wild and
unfounded allegations against Judges of High Court-Tendency-
Strongly deprecated.
D
· The· appellant-a student of intermediate class, was alleged to
have led the attack on the rival faction alongwith his accomplices armed
with deadly weapons like gun, pistol, sword, kanta, lathi etc. resulting
in triple murder. He was 'also alleged to have opened fire with bis gun at
the deceased. •· ·
E
The trial court disbelieved his plea of alibi, that ou the date of
occurrence he was actually attending bis classes in college, in support of
which he tendered in evidence the attendance register and also exa·
mined D\V 1, the lecturer in college, and he was convicted under s. 302
read withs. 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

t ·, _ The High ~~urt in appeal affirmed the conviction. Agreeing with F
' the triarcourt it reached the conclusion that the entries in the college
~ attendance register were forged and passed strictures against· the
witness. ·

In the appeal before this Court by special leave the appellant came G
forward with the belated plea that he was a child below the age of 16
years within the meaning of s. 2(4) of the.U.P. Children Act, 1952 and
j there!ore, the trial was vitiated by reason of s. 29 of the Act. It was
contended that in spite of repeated requests ·or his counsel he was not
heard by the High Court Judges ou the point. While making this frivol·
ons assertion the accused also made wild allegations in an attempt to H
1053
1054 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1987] 2 S.C.R.

destroy the credibility of the Judges and creat~ doubt about the correct-
A ~-
ness of the judgment appealed from. To substantiate tbe allegation he
and his legal advisors brought into existence certain correspondence. In
support of his age he filed affidavits of his father and the advocate. In
addition, he also placed on record copies of extract of the kutumo
register of the Gaon Sabha, certificate of High School examination,
B entry from the electoral roll, and endorsement in ink below his state-
ment recorded unders s. 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. ).__

Dismissing the appeal, the Court

HELD: 1. 1 The appellant wa• not a child within the meaning of s. 2(4)
of the U.P. Children Act, 1952 at the time of occurrence and, therefore,
..\
'·
-
c was not entitled to the benefit of section 29 of the Act. [1062F; 1055G-H]
,l
1.2 The affidavits and the copies of documents placed on record,
after the grant of the special Ieave--<oxtract of the kutumo register of
the Gaon Sabha, certificate of High School Examination and entry from
D the electoral roll, in support of appellant's age are all of doubtful aut-
henticity 'ilnd it would be unsafe to rely upon them. Such documents can
always be brought into existence. So is the endorsement in ink below the
statement of the appellant recorded by the trial court under s. 313 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, to the effect that "the age of 17 years t
appears to be correct". Even assuming that.the endorsement was made
E by the trial court, that was only an estimate of age and does not neces-
sadly show that the apppellant was a child within the meaning of s. 2(4)
of the Act at the time of occurrence. I J062F; 1063C]
--
~.
!l

1.3 The attempt made by the appellant and his legal advisors
earlier to substantiate the false plea of alibi by production of forged
.It'·
F attendance register, and the tendering of evidence of DW 1, against
whom the High Court has passed strictures for suborning himself in an
attempt to thwart the course of justice, makes it evident that the appel-
i.mt and his legal advisors would go to any extent in creating evidence to
snpportthe false plea now taken. [1063CD]

G The facts brought out in the prosecution case clearly show that the )----
incident which led to the triple murder was calculated, preplanned and
rutltlessly executed, and that the appellant not only led the assault hut
also played a prominent role in it. It is incredible that he was a child
below _the age of 16 years at thattime. [1056H; 1057 A]

H 2. There is nothing on record to substantiate the allegation that
VINOD v. STATE OF U.P. [SEN, J.]· 1055

the appellant was not heard by the High Court on the question of his A
age, If there was any troth in that assertion it was expected that the
learned Judges would have made a mention of the fact that a contention
was advanced on his behalf that he was a child within the meaning of
s. 2(4) of the Act, for whatever it was worth. [1060DE]

3.1 The appellant and the other accused have gone further and B
made wholly wild and unfounded allegations against the Judges of the
High Court casting serions aspersions on them. They have brought into
existence certain correspondence in an attempt to create prejudice
against them. The propriety of placing copies of the correspondence on
record cannot be seen nnless it was with a view to create doubts and
suspicion about the integrity of the Judges. It shows that the appellant c
and his legal advisors can go to any extent to secure a reversal of the
judgment of the High Court. [1060FG]

3.2 The practice of making baseless imputations on the part of
unsuccessful litigants against Judges is most unhealthy and this Court
takes set ions notice of this evil. The members of the bar equally share D
this responsibility and should ensure that such uncalled for aspersions
are not cast on the Judges. The counsel who drafted the special leave
petition should have shown greater circumspection. [J063E; l062U]

.if CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
No. 287 of 1986. E

From the Judgment and order dated 26.4.1985 of the Allahabad
High Court in Cr!. Appeal No. 1938 of 1977.

D.P. Singh, N.P. Midha and Mrs. Rani Chhabra for the
Appellant. F

Prithvi Raj and D. Bhandari for the Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

SEN, J. This appeal by special leave directed against the judg- G
ment of the Allahabad High Court dated April 26, 1985 upholding the
judgment and sentence passed hy the learned Additional Sessions
Judge, Kanpur dated July 11, 1977 raises the question whether the
appellant was a child as defined ins. 2(4) of the U .P. Children Act,
1952 and therefore was entitled to Jhe benefit of s. 29 of the Act. The
point was not taken in the High Court nor was there any such plea H
1056 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1987] 2 S.C.R.

A raised during the trial. This was a case of triple murder. The appellant
along with his ten companions was convicted by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge under s. 302 read withs. 149 of the Indian Penal Code, ~
1860 for having committed the murders of the deceased Basdeo,
Anant Ram and Mahabir in furtherance of the common object of the
unlawful assembly and they were each sentenced to undergo rigorous
B imprisonment for life. The Court has granted special leave to the
appellant Vinod Kumar alone and dismissed the special leave petitions
filed by the other accused. )...

In this appeal, the appellant sought special leave mainly on two
grounds, namely: (1) The High Court was not justified in dismissing ~ .
..
c the appeals before it without hearing learned counsel appearing for the
accused on the ground that the Court was satisfied that the appeals
ought to be allowed. And (2) The trial of the appellant Vinod Kumar
and the sentence of imprisonment for life awarded upon his conviction )..
under s. 302 were vitiated in view of the decisions of this Court in
Jayendra & Anr. v. State of U.P., [1981] 4 SCC 149; Umesh (:handra v.
D State of Rajasthan, [1982] 3 SCR 583 and Gopi Nath Ghosh v. State of
West Bengal, [1984] I SCR 803 as the appellant at the time of the
incident was not even 14 years of age, his date of birth being April 18,
1959, and was a 'child' as defined ins. 2(4) of the Act and he oµghl to
have been tried by the special court as required under s. 29 and his trial
by the Court of Sessions was bad in law. 'f.-
E
We have heard Shri Dharam Pal Singh, learned counsel for the
appellant at quite some length. It was stated that the only question
raised at the stage of grant of special leave, which again was the solitary
-
point urged by him before us, was that the appellant was a child within ~
the meaning of s. 2(4) of the Act at the time of the occurrence and
F therefore entitled to the benefit c;>f s. 29. The learned counsel made a
statement at the bar that the other point was not pressed at the hearing k
. of the special leave petitions, namely, that the High Court did not give
a hearing to the appellant and the other accused.

Normally, it would seem unnecessary to state the facts of the
G case in detail as they may not be germane to the issue now sought to be
raised, namely, that the High Court was not justified in dismissing the
r---·~
appeal preferred by the accused without giving them a hearing. But in
the facts and circumstances of the present case, we think it necessary
to do so. The facts brought out in the prosecution case clearly show
that the appellant not only led the assault but also played a prominent
H role which resulted in the gruesome triple murder and it is incredible
VINOD v. STATE OF U.P. [SEN, J.) 1057

that he was a child at the time of the incident. The incident which led
A
to the triple murder appears to be calculated, preplanned and ruth-
lessly executed.

Brief!y ~lated, the facts disclosed by the evidence of the prosecu-
\ion ar11 that there were two rival factions in village Pania Mau, one led
11y the deceased Basdeo to which the other dead persons Anant Ram B
and Mahabir belonged, and the other of which the appellant Vinod
·~ Kumar and his ten companions were members, and the relations bet-

- ft ween them were extremely strained. It appears from the prosecution
evidence that this ghastly incident took place on ·the morning of
August 20, 1973 on the banks of a tank lying on the western outskirts
of the village abadi which is used by the village people for purposes of
bathing and washing their clothes. At about 11.30 a.m. the three
c
~ deceased Basdeo, Anant Ram and Mahabir had gone to the tank for
taking bath and washing their clothes. One of the eye-witnesses
K\lrnari Shashi Kala, PW 3, sister of the deceased Basdeo had also
gone there for similar purposes. She was at the southern burj of the
tank, deceased Basdeo was (Jn the northern burj, deceased Mahabir D
and Anant Ram were on the steps of the ghat on the eastern bank. The
appellant Vin{)d Kumar along with his companions suddenly appeared
ai the g!!at armed with deadly weapons like gun, pistol, sword, kanta,
·~ lathi c:to, and they opened an assault on the three dead persons. The
accused almost simultaneously opened fire with his gun at the
deceased Basdeo and the appellant Vinod Kumar with his pistol at the E
""' deceased Mahabir. Basdeo on receiving gun shot injuries jumped into
the tank to swim across and take to safety.. The deceased Mahabir was
also injured by gun-fire and tried to escape but fell down on receiving
ir another gun shot fired by the accused Hanuman. When he fell down,
the accused Shiv Prasad and Ranjit Singh repeatedly hit him with their
;J sword anll kanta resulting in his instantaneous death. The deceased F
Anant Ram was also assaulted by the accused Roop Ram and Gopal
with their sword and kanta and he died on the spot as a result of the
injuries received by him. The appellant Vinod Kumar and the accused
Hanuman then rushed to the western bank of the tank and opened fire
at the fleeing Basdeo and on being hit he fell down in the fie'd of Deo
Karan. By that time all the accused reached the spot and there he was G
~---{
again assaulted by the appellant and his companions and his head was
chopped off the trunk. Thereafter, the sppellant and his companions
made good their escape and the accused Roop Ram carried the
decapitated head of the deceased Basdeo.

The appellant abjured his guilt and complained that he had been H
1058 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1987] 2 S.C.R.

falsely implicated due to previous animosity. His only plea in defence
A at the trial as well as in the High Court was one of alibi. It was alleged ~·
that he was a student of Intermediate class in C.A.V. Inter College,
Allahabad and on the date of the occurrence i.e. on August 20, 1973
he was actually attending his classes in the college ..He te~dered in
evidence the college attendance register and also examined Virendra
B Kumar Mehta, DW l, a Lecturer in Physics in the college in support of
his plea of alibi. ;....
The learned Additional Sessions Judge and the High Court have
during the course of their carefully written judgments marshalled the
entire evidence and come to the conclusion that the guilt of the appel-
,~ -
c !ant and the other accused was proved by the prosecution beyond all
reasonable doubt. The High Court on a consideration of the evidence
has come to the conclusion that there was no reason to disbelieve the J.
unimpeachable testimony of PW 3 Kumari Shashi Kala, sister of the
deceased Basdeo as well as the testimony of the three other eye-
witnesses, PW I Ram Shanker. PW 2 Ram Swamp, brother of the
0 deceased Mahabir and PW 6 Prayag Narain, who were undoubtedly
present at the place of the incident, and have given a graphic descrip-
lion of the entire incident. It observed that though these witnesses
were subjected to close cross-examination, the defence had failed to
impeach their credibility as truthful witnesses. The evidence of these i
witnesses clearly brings out that it was the appellant who Jed the as-
E sault which resulted in the triple murder of Basdeo, Anant Ram and ..,.
Mahabir.

As to the plea of alibi raised by the appellant, both the learned ~ '
Additional Sessions Judge and the High Court have recorded a finding
that he has failed to substantiate that plea. The crude attempt to
F establish the plea of alibi by production of the college attendance :<
register and the examination of Virendra Kumar Mehta, OW 1 has
failed. The High Court agr,eeing with the learned Additional Sessions
Judge has come to the conclusion that the entries in the college attend-
ance register were forged and has passed strictures against this witness
that he being a person in a responsible position, should have appeared
G as a witness for the defence and had not cared to uphold the dignity of )---·~
his position, and by giving suborned evidence has tried to thwart the
course of justice not only by his evidence but also by interpolating the
college attendance register.

From the narration of the facts it is incredible that the appellant
H was only a child within the meaning of s. 2(4) of the Act i.e. below the
VINOD v. STATE OF U.P. (SEN, J.] 1059

age of 16 years at the time of the occurrence, which is nothing but a A
-i complete afterthought. Undeterred by the fact that the appellant had
failed to establish the false plea of alibi by the production of the forged
college attendance register and taking cue from the various decisions
of this Court as reported in Satto & Ors. v. StateofV.P., [1979] 3 SCR
768; Jayendra & Anr. v. State of U.P., Umesh Chandra v. State of
Rajasthan and Gopi Nath Ghosh v. State of West Bengal (supra) dis- B
playing the Court's deep concern and solicitude about the treatment of
-..\ juvenile offenders, the appellant is emboldened to come forward with
this belated plea that he was a child within the meaning of s. 2( 4) of the
~

f.-. Act and therefore the trial was vitiated by reason of s. 29. However,
before we deal with the question on merits we would like to advert to
unseemly features in this case. c
--\· The case presents a feature which is rather disturbing. In the first
place, there are false averments made in the special leave petition in
order to present a distorted picture of the hearing of the appeals in the
High Court. Secondly, there are wild and unfounded allegations made
against the learned Judges in an attempt to destroy their credibility D
and create doubt about the ·correctness of the judgment appealed.
from. As to the first aspect, the legal advisors of the appellant and the
other accused have gone· to the extent of making out an entirely false
case, namely, .that the High Court did not give a hearing to them.

~
"' Merely because the learned counsel disdained from raising the point at
the stage of grant of special leave, does not imply that we should not E
take notice of the facts alleged. We shall indeed be failing in our duty if
we do not comment upon the conduct of the appellant and the other
accused and their legal advisors in trying to create prejudice against
'JI'
the High Court. It is averred in paragraph 13 of the special leave'
petition that the appeals were taken up for hearing on April, 1, 1985 at
;.; 3.15 p.m. and that day only the names of the accused, weapons, sec- F
tions and sentences, date and time of the occurrence etc. were given
out when the Court rose for the day at 3.45 p.m. It is then averred in
para 14 that on the next day i.e. on the 2nd, the appeals could not be
taken up. They were taken up on the 3rd at 2.10 p.m. when the case
was called out when Shri Chandra Shekha~ Saran and Shri P.C.
Chaturvedi, the two senior counsel along with Sarvashri Dharam Pal G
·--! Singh, G.S. Chaturvedi and A.K. Sachan appeared. It is alleged that
when the case was called out and Shri Chandra Shekhar Saran wanted
to argue the appeals, the learned Judges said that they had seen the
case and they did not want to hear the appellants but wanted to hear
the State counsel. At this point, it is said that Shri P .C. Chaturvedi
pointed out the age of the appellant Vinod Kumar and thereupon one H
1060 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [l9S7] 2 S.C.R.

A of the Judges (Hon'ble Mr. Justice X who delivered the judgment)
observed that since they wanted to allow the appeals, therefore, they
did not want to hear the appellants and if need be, they would call
upon them later. It is then alleged that the Court called upon the State
as to how it supported the judgment as two of the four eye-witnesses
had been disbelieved by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and the
B remaining two witnesses were partisan witnesses, one of whom being
PW 3 Kumari Shashi Kala, who was a young girl of 15 years and would
not go to the tank alone at that time. It is further alleged, \~at after the
prosecution had placed the evidence of PW 2 Ram· Swar~p, the Court
was not satisfied and reserved the judgment. At this ~\~ge, it i~ said,
Shri P .C. Chaturvedi again tried to point qut t~e ?g~ ef \he appellant
but Mr. Justice X observed that when th~ veraei!y of the two eye-
c witnesses was doubtful there remained no need to proceed further.
The Court rose at 3.45 p.m. The allegations in paras 14 to 17 are that
the Judges gave an impression at the conclusion of the hearing on
April 3, 1985 that the appeals would result in an acquittal while they
pronounced the judgment on the 28th dismissing the appeals and it is
D then averred' in para 17 that this decision came as a shock to the
counsel appearing for the accused. There is nothing on record to sub-
. stantiate these allegations apart from the letter written by Shri
Dharam Pal Singh to the counsel in this Court to file the special leave
petition to which we shall presently refer. Jn view of the conduct of the
appellant and the other accused and their legal advisors we are not
E prepared to act on the assertion in the letter written by Shri Dharam
Pal Singh. If there was any truth in this assertion, it was expected that
the learned Judges would have made a mention of ·t!ie fa~t that a
contention was advanced on behalf of the appellant that Ii~ was a child
within the meaning of s. 2( 4) of the Act for whatever it was worth.

F We feel deeply concerned that the appellant and the other
accused do not rest themselves by making this false assertion that they
were not heard by the High Court but they have gone further and
made wholly wild and unfounded allegations against the learned
Judges casting serious aspersions on them. They have brought into
existence certain correspondence in an attempt to create prejudice
G against the learned Judges. We fail to see the propriety of placing
copies of these two letters unless it was with a view to create doubts
and suspicion about the integrity of the learned Judges. It shows that
the appellant and his legal advisors can go to any extent to secure a
reversal of the judgment of the High Court upholding the conviction of
the appellant for having committed offences of murder punishable
H under s. 302 read withs. 149 of the Indian Penal Code. First is a letter
VINOD v. STATE OF U.P. (SEN, J.( 1061

dated April 23, 1985 i.e. just three days before the delivery of the A
judgment, said to have been written by Shri K.L. Grover to the
accused Ram Gopal Sachan. We understand that Shri Grover is com-
paratively a senior counsel practising in the High Court at Allahabad.
The letter of Shri Grover appears to be written in response to a letter
written by the accused dated April 20, 1985 seeking his assistance. Shri
Grover naturally expressed his resentment and displeasure that the B
11ccuse<j should have written a letter of this nature to him asking that
he should try to influence the learned Judges. It is in these terms:

"I was surprised and sorry after reading it. Neither I am a
Counsel in Criminal Nos. 1937 and 1938 of 1977 Hanuman
and others and Vinod and others, nor I know any of them c
and I have no connection with these cases. You have writ-
ten about Shri D.P. Singh, Advocate. He is a good counsel
but your assertions are baseless. I do not take part in any
unscrupulous thing. This is correct that Hon'ble X is my
friend but he is a Judge and I am an advocate. Decisions
are not sold in the High Court. Hon'ble Xis like all other D
Judges of the High Court very honest Judge. Either you
have written false thing or you have been cheated by some
body. Kindly do not correspond with me in this connec-
tion."

'file othl'r is a letter dated May 24, 1985 addressed by Shri E
Dharam Pal Singh to the counsel in this Court instructing him to file
the special leave petition, saying that as a counsel his "conscience was
shocked", narrating that at the hearing the learned Judges gave the
·j' impression that thfs was a case which deserved acquittal and they
would like to hear the prosecution counsel and thereafter, if necessary,
they would hear the accused. In the l_etter he asserts that on this the F
senior counsel Shri Chandra Shekhar Saran did not address the Court,
but Shri P.C. Chaturvedi told the Court that the appellant was a child
upon which one of the learned Judges observed that since they were
allowing the appeal, it was not necessary to go into the question. He
then goes on to say that he and the other counsel were shocked by the
judgment delivered by the learned Judges dismissing the appeals. He G
also adverts to Shri Grover's letter and mentions that he had taken the
accused Ram Gopal Sachan to Shri Grover's place and enquired about
the letter since the accused denied that he had written any such letter.
According to his version Shri Grover declined to give them the letter
as he did not want to get involved in any controversy and he then adds:
H
1062 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1987] 2 S.C.R.

A "As counsel, we owe a duty to our client and all of us
appearing on behalf of the accused feel that we have failed
therein and our conscience is in distress."

He then concludes by saying:

B "We do not know whether all these facts should be
placed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this decision
we leave in your hands. But we do request you to Kindly
see that the hearing which we could not get for these
accused (having a case for acquittal) do get an opportunity
of placing their case before the Court."
c A perusal of these letters would tend to show that there was an attempt
to blackmail the learned Judges. We cannot but deprecate the conduct
of the appellant and the other accused in making such wild allegations
about the propriety and conduct of the learned Judges. We have no
doubt in our mind that the allegations are totally false and untrue. It is
D pertinent to observe that Shri Dharam Pal Singh has chosen not to file
any affidavit in support of the assertions made by him in his letter. The
learned counsel who drafted the special leave petitions should have
shown greater circumspection before casting such serious aspersions
on the High Court. We are not prepared to believe that it was
mentioned before the learned Judges at the hearing of the appeals that
E the appellant was a child within the meaning of s. 2(4) of the Act when
this fact is not borne out by the judgment and there is nothing on
record to substantiate the allegation.
,
In the facts and circumstances of this particular case, we are not ~-
prepared to countenance the argument that the appellant was a child
F within the meaning of s. 2(4) of the Act. After the grant of special
leave, the appellant apart from his own affidavit, filed two affidavits of
his father Sri Narain Sachan and an affidavit by Shri Jitendra Prasad
Singh, Advocate, brother of Dharam Pal Singh. He has also placed on
record copies of certain documents, namely (I) extracts of the kutumo
register in Form 'A' of Pania Mau Gaon Sabha issued by the Village
G Panchayat Officer, Nyaya Panchayat, Dev Rahal. (2) Certificate of
the High School Examination, 1973 issued by the Secretary of
Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, Uttar Pradesh. (3) Entry from the
electoral roll relating to U.P. State Legislative Assembly Constituency
No. 275, Allahabad, Mahalia Buxi Khurd. (4) Statement of the appel-
lant recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge under s. 313 of
H the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. We have gone through these
VINOD v. STATE OF U.P. [SEN, J.[ 1063

affidavits and other documents and we are not prepared to act on A
them. At the hearing we asked the learned counsel to produce the
original documents. We are satisfied that the documents are of doubt-
ful authenticity and it would be unsafe to rely upon such documents.
Such documents can always be brought into existence. We would refer
to the statement of the appellant recorded by the learned Additional B
Sessions Judge on June 4, 1975 wherein the appellant stated his age to ·
. _.\ be 17 years. Beneath the statement, there is an endorsement in ink:
"The age of 17 years appears to be correct". We are left to guess who
made this endorsement. Even assuming that the endorsement was
- ,i. made by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, that was only an esti-
mate of age and does not necessarily show that the appellant was a
child within the meaning of s. 2(4) of the Act at the time ofoccurrence. c
In view of the earlier attempt made by the appellant and his legal
advisors to substantiate the false plea of alibi by production of forged
attendance register and the tendering of evidence of Virendra Kumar
Mehta, DW 1 against whom the High Court has passed strictures for
suborning himself in an attempt to thwart the course of justice, it is
quite evident that the appellant and his legal advisors would go to any D
extent in creating evidence to support the false plea now taken.

In conclusion, we cannot but once again deprecate the growing
tendency on the part of the unsuccessful litigants to impute unworthy
motives to Judges and this has become not uncommon these days. We
frown upon the practice of making such baseless imputations against E
Judges and time has come for this Court to take serious notice of this
unhealthy trend before it becomes a growing menace and an unmiti-
gated evil. We feel that the members of the bar equally share this
responsibility and should ensure that uncalled for aspersions are not
cast on the Judges. Such a course of action on their part would enhance
the prestige of the Court and the legal profession. For these reasons, F
the appeal must fail and is dismissed.

P.S.S Appeal dismissed.

G