Sunteți pe pagina 1din 4




SLP (Crl.) No.10247 of 2018

Dilaver Singh ….Petitioner


State of Rajasthan …. Respondent


I, ___________, S/o________________aged about ___ years,

presently at ________ do herby solemnly affirm and state as under:-

1. That I am aware of the facts of the present case and, I am competent

to swear the present Affidavit on behalf of the Petitioner herein.

2. That the present Special Leave Petition has been filed on behalf of

the Petitioner, challenging the Judgment and Order dated 28.08.2018

passed by the Hon’ble High Court of judicature for Rajasthan bench at

Jodhpur in D.B. Criminal appeal No. 199 of 2005 which is pending

disposal before this Hon’ble Court.

3. That during the pendency of the present petition, the issue of

petitioner being a juvenile had arisen, for which, this Hon’ble Court

vide Order dated 31.07.2019 was pleased to direct the Ld. Sessions

Court, District Sriganganagar to record a finding on the factum of

juvenility of the petitioner by giving opportunity to both the parties,

namely, Dilaver Singh/Petitioner herein and the complainant or the

State of Rajasthan to produce relevant evidence in support of their

respective stand and including examine witnesses, if any. A true copy

of order dated 31.07.2019 is annexed hereto and marked as A-1.

4. That in terms of the aforesaid order dated 31.07.2019, a report was

submitted by the Ld. Session Court, Shri

Ganganagar, Rajasthan before this Hon’ble Court on 21.10.2019.

5. That the present petition was last listed before this Hon’ble Court on

21.11.2019, on which date, the respondent/State of Rajasthan was

granted two weeks’ time to file affidavit in response to the aforesaid

inquiry report.

6. It is most respectfully submitted that by way of filing the present

Additional Affidavit, the Petitioner seeks leave of this Hon’ble Court to

place on record certain facts which are material and necessary for,

inter alia, the adjudication of the present Special Leave Petitions.

7. That the Hon’ble High Court of Rajasthan in the order impugned

herein has recorded para 7 Point 8 as under:-

“accused Pawan kumar, Kuldeep singh @chindaa and Dilaver Singh

were produced before the JJB, Bikaner. After due enquiry, JJB vide
order dated 9.9.02 held that as on the date of commission of the
crime Dilaver Singh had already attained the age of majority &
therefore, he can’t be considered to be a juvenile in complete with
Law. Aggrieved thereby, accused Dilaver Singh preferred an Appeal
which was decided by the additional session judge no. 2, Bikaner
vide order dated 02.12.02, whereby the matter was remitted to the
Juvenile justice Board to pass an appropriate order afresh after due
enquiry. The Juvenile justice Board vide order dated 07.07.03 again
held that accused Dilaver Singh does not fall within the category of
‘Juvenile’ in conflict of Law’ and the matter was directed to be placed
before the criminal court of competent jurisdiction for trial.
Accordingly, the supplementary charge sheet filed against Dilaver
Singh before Judicial Magistrate no.2, Sriganganagar for offence
under section 147,148, 342,302,149 IPC.”
8. However, on last date of hearing before this Hon’ble Court i.e. on

21.11.2019, it has come to the notice of the petitioner an averments

made in the SLP which, unfortunately is not factually correct. At Page

____ of the SLP it has been averred as under:-

“That consequently vide order dated 09.09.2002, petitioner herein

was held to be major on the date of commission of alleged offence by
the Juvenile Justice Board & Therefore, he was sent back to the
regular criminal court for trial. The petitioner challenged the decision
of his being declared to be major but he lost the battle till the high
court & he did not challenge the same any further”.

9. It is most respectfully submitted that the order dated 09.09.2002 was

never carried to the Hon’ble High Court and the correct facts are

recoded in the impugned order at para 7 Point 8, as quoted above. In

facts the petitioner could also not carry the order dated 07.07.2003

passed by the JJB, Bikaner to the session Judge or to the Hon’ble

High Court of Rajasthan. However, inadvertently and erroneously, it

got written in the SLP that the order dated 09.09.2002 was

challenged before the High Court. The petitioner’s guarding being

uneducated and bereft of any understanding of law did not challenge

the Order dated 07.07.2003 before any Court.

10. That the pairokar of the petitioner in this case is brother of the

Petitioner namely Shyam Sundar who was student at the time of

occurrence & he did not know the true facts of this case. The

aforesaid mistake was unintentional, inadvertent and bonafide.


11. It is most respectfully submitted that in view of the report now

submitted by the Ld. Session Court, Shri Ganganagar, Rajasthan (in

compliance of order passed by this Hon’ble Court), there remains no

doubt as to the status of the petitioner as juvenile.

12. It is most respectfully submitted that the filing of the present affidavit

has been necessitated in order to bring to the notice of this Hon’ble

Court the incorrect factual averments made by the petitioner as

submitted above. The Petitioner humbly apologizes that these facts

could not be correctly brought out before this Hon’ble Court in the

SLP filed.

13. The Petitioner prays accordingly.


Place: New Delhi

Date: ..