NATARAJAN, J.


The appellant has been convicted under section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced to imprisonment for life by the Sessions Judge of Cuddalore in SC No. 21 of 1980 on the file of his Court for having committed the murder of his cousin, a ten year old boy named Manikandan by stabbing him indiscriminately all over his body with a knife at about 5 p.m. 6-7-1979 at Kalinchikuppam village. The appellant has preferred this appeal against his conviction and sentence.


2. When the appeal was taken up for hearing, Mr. Vanamamalai, learned counsel for the appellant, raised a plea that the appellant was a young person and as such, he should have been tried and sentenced according to the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Children Act and ought not to have been tried as an adult offender and sentenced to imprisonment for life, even if the evidence conclusively proved his guilt. Such a plea was not raised by the appellant either before the committing Magistrate or before the Sessions Judge. Even in the grounds of appeal, such a plea has not been taken. Notwithstanding this position, the appellant's counsel raised a plea about the age of the appellant on account of a solitary feature, viz, that the appellant while giving his statement under section 313 Cri.P.C., had given his age as 19 years. As the statement was given on 10-11-1980 and as the occurrence had taken place on 6-7-1979, viz, nearly one and a half years earlier, the appellant's counsel argued that the appellant must have been about 17-1/2 years of age on the date of commission of the offence and hence, he should have been treated as young person and tried as such. In view of this objection, we passed an order directing the Superintendent, Central Prison, Vellore, to have the appellant examined by the District Medical Officer radiologically and get a report regarding the age of the appellant. We also directed the Public Prosecutor to instruct the Police authorities to find out whether there is any birth certificate, school certificate and College certificate for the appellant, in order to know whether there is independent evidence regarding the date of birth of the appellant. Pending receipt of these records, the hearing of the appeal was postponed.


3. In view of our directions, the appellant has been radiologically examined at the Government Pentland Hospital Vellore, and an age certificate has been submitted, which is now marked as Ex. C. 1. According to the Radiologist, the appellant was aged 'above 21 years' on the date of his examination, viz, on 27-11-1982. Besides, the prosecution has also obtained copies of age certificates from the school and College where the appellant has studied and they are marked as Exs. C. 2 and 3 respectively. As per these certificates, the date of birth of the appellant is 6-5-1961. If that be the case, the appellant should have been aged 18 years and 2 months on the date of the commission of offence.


4. When the appeal was taken up for hearing on 20-1-1983, learned counsel for the appellant reiterated his earlier plea that the appellant should have been below 18 years on the date of the commission of the offence. To get over the certificate of age issued by the Radiologist, the learned counsel contended that it was only based upon the fusion of iliac crest, the Radiologist has stated that the appellant was aged over 21 years. But according to Pillai's table contained in Modi's Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology, the age of fusion of illiac crest for males in the erstwhile Madras State is 14 to 18 years and hence, the opinion given by the Radiologist cannot be a correct one. In order to get over the age certificate given by the school and college authorities, the counsel argued that those certificates have not been properly proved. In addition, he filed an affidavit sworn to by the father of the appellant. Therein, the appellant's father has stated that he got married only at the late age of 30 years and about a year later, his wife died and thereupon he took a second wife when he was about 32 years old and the appellant was the first child born through the second wife. He has stated that the appellant was therefore not even 20 years of age on the date of his swearing to the affidavit, viz, 18-1-1983. He has, however, admitted that the appellant was educated in the school and college but he had not furnished the school authorities any particulars regarding the date of birth of the appellant. Placing reliance on these two factors, the appellant's counsel argued that the certificates obtained from the school and College authorities cannot prove the age of the appellant in any manner.


5. Taking up first for consideration the certificate given by the Radiologist, we find from the certificate that the Radiologist has specifically confined his opinion to the fusion of the iliac crest. He has also reported that the lower end of radius and the lower end of ulna, which, fuse at the age of 18, have become fused. Then has referred to the fusion of the

"illiac crest. No doubt in Pillai's table in Modi's Medical Jurisprudence, the age of fusion of the crest of ilium has been given as 14 to 18 years. On that score alone, we are not prepared to accept the contention 'hat the appellant would have only completed the age of 18 and would not have completed the age of 21 on the date of Radiological examination. This is because of the fact that the fusion of bones occurs for different persons at different times and the variation is due to a multiplicity of causes, such as, the health conditions of the family in which the person was born, the climatic conditions in which he is living, the dietary habits he is accustomed to, the type of life he is leading etc. Consequently the determination of age on the basis of radiological examination can only be an approximate factor and it cannot be taken as a decisive and incontrovertible feature. Even modi has pointed out that a blind and mechanical view regarding the age of a person cannot be adopted solely on the basis of the evidence afforded by the radiological examination. At page 31 of Modi's Text Book of Medical Jurisprudence and Texicotogy, 20th Edn. it has been stated as follows :-" *


In ascertaining the age of young persons radiograms of any of the main joints of the upper or the lower extremity of both sides of the body should be taken, an opinion should be given according to the following table, but it must be remembered that too much reliance should not be placed on this table as it merely indicates an average and is likely to vary in individual cases even of the same province owing to the eccentricities of development.

"Courts have taken judicial notice of this fact and have always held that the evidence afforded by radiological examination is no doubt a useful guiding factor for determining the age of a person, but the evidence is not of a conclusive and incontrovertible nature and it is subject to a margin of error.


6. In Jaya Mala v. Home Secretary, Govt of J. and K., it was observed as follows -" *


However, it is notorious and one can take judicial notice that the margin of error in age ascertained by radiological examination is two years on either side.


"In Chathu v. P. Govindan Kutti, 1958 AIR(Ker) 121, at p. 122) : ILR 1957 Ker 591 at p. 594, it was observed as follows :-" *


We are not at all satisfied that the learned Magistrate was right in preferring the opinion of the Radiologist to the positive evidence furnished by the Municipal birth register, the school admission register and the evidence of the girl's father, particularly when medicolegal opinion is that owing to the variations in climatic, dietetic, hereditary and other factors affecting the people of the different States of India, it cannot be reasonably expected to formulate a uniform standard for the determination of the age by the extent of ossification and the union of epiphyses in bones."


It was held in Md. Syedol Ariffin v. Y. O. Gark, 1916 AIR(PC) 242, that a Doctor's certificate as to age is no proof, since it is only an assertion of an opinion. The same view was taken in Mohd. Ikram Hussain v. State of U.P.


7. In this case, if we had no other material to determine the age of the appellant, we may have been persuaded to accept the argument of Mr. Vanamamalai, that it may not be safe to place absolute reliance on the radiologist's opinion and render a finding that the appellant should have completed 18 years of age on the date of the commission of offence. But here we have other materials, which support the opinion given by the radiologist about the age of the appellant.


8. Taking up the certificate, Ex. C. 2, it has been issued by the Head Master of the Panchayat Union Middle School, Kalinchikuppam. It refers to the admission of one V. Shanmugham, son of Venugopal in the Second standard of that school on 30-6-1967. His date of birth has been given as '06.05.61' in Tamil, the date of birth has been written as. It also mentions about the student leaving the school on 1-6-1971 on account of his being promoted to the sixth standard. According to Ex. C. 3, issued by the Principal, Government Arts College, Villupuram, the date of birth of the student V. Shanmugham son of Venugopal of Kolinchikuppam is 6-5-1961 as per the College records. The name of the appellant and his father's name as well as the name of the village from which he hails, fit in correctly with the particulars given by the appellant. There can therefore be no doubt that the documents Exs. C. 2 and C. 3 refer to the appellant and none else. Even so, Mr. Vanamalai contended that Exs. C. 2 and C. 3 should not be taken into consideration, because they have not been duly proved in the sense that the person who has admitted the appellant in the school and college, has not been examined to prove the correctness of the entries contained in the certificates. In support of his argument, he relied upon the decision in Ram Murti v. State of Haryana, where it was held that unproved and unexhibited school certificates cannot be relied upon. We are not persuaded to accept the argument of Mr. Vanamalai because the question whether a school certificate or college certificate can be taken into consideration for determining the age of a person without formal proof of the particulars contained in the certificate is a matter which has to be decided with reference to the facts of each case. In this particular case, as already stated, the records contain the names of the appellant and his father in an unambiguous manner. Moreover, the village to which he belongs is also referred to. It is significant to note that in the affidavit filed by the father of the appellant, he does not dispute that his son was admitted in the Middle School at Kalinchikuppam by him. All that he would say is that he did not give any information regarding the date of birth of his son to the school authorities. This statement cannot be accepted, because the school authorities should have asked the parent to give the date of birth of his son when they admitted him in the school. Therefore, there is an admission by the father himself about the appellant having studied in the school which has issued Ex. C. 2 certificate. As regards his studying in the College, it is not disputed by the appellant. Hence. Ex. C. 3 certificate should also refer only to him. In the very nature of things, the appellant should have his S.S.L.C. certificate as well. The Public Prosecutor stated that the Inspector of Police tried to get the S.S.L.C. book; but the appellant's father told him that the appellant was having the book and when the appellant was questioned he denied having the book. Therefore, he stated that the appellant was wantonly keeping the book back, lest its production would shatter his contention that he was a youthful offender on the date of occurrence. Mr. Vanamalai, however, produced a Zerox copy of the relevant page in the S.S.L.C. book which is now marked as Ex. C. 4, and it gives the details of the appellant's name, age etc. Even Ex. C. 4 refers to the date of birth of the appellant only as 8-5-1961. On account of all these factors, we do not think any formal proof is necessary to connect the entries in Exs. C. 2 to C. 4 with the appellant. In this connection, we may only refer to a decision in Anadi Mohan v. Rabindranath, 1962 AIR(Cal) 265 at p. 267 : 65 Cal WN 1165 at p. 1169 where it was held that matriculation certificate is admissible under section 35 of the Evidence Act, for determining the age of a person. We are therefore satisfied that Exs. C. 2 to C. 4 refer to the appellant and none else and on the basis of the entries contained therein, the appellant should have been born on 6-5-1961.


9. However, Mr. Vanamalai placed reliance on the affidavit filed by the appellant's father and argued that the appellant could not have been born on 6-5-1961. In the circumstances in which the father has come to file the affidavit, we are not prepared to attach any weight to it. When the appellant has been found guilty under section 302 I.P.C., and sentenced to imprisonment for life and when at the stage of appeal a question is raised about the age of the appellant at the time of occurrence, in order to set at naught the conviction and more than that, the sentence of life imprisonment; any father placed in the position of the appellant's father would not allow himself to be stricken down by conscience and refuse to file an affidavit in support of the plea of his son that he was an young person at the time of occurrence. It would require a Mahatma like the Father of the Nation to refuse to come to the aid of his son in a situation like this and accept that the entries contained in the school register reflect the correct state of affairs and he had given the particulars regarding the date of birth of his son to the school authorities at the relevant time.


10. For the foregoing, reasons, we hold that the appellant should have been born on 6-5-1961 and he should have been aged 18 years and two months on the date of occurrence and as such, he was not an young person at the relevant time. The learned Sessions Judge was therefore right in treating the appellant as an adult offender and holding the trial accordingly.


11. Coming now to the facts of the case, the prosecution case is briefly as follows : Govindasami, father of the deceased Manikandan Venugopal father of the appellant and P.W. 1, Narayanaswami are brothers and all of them were living in a village called Kalinchikuppam. Deceased Nanikandan was aged only ten years and was studing in a school.... ... ... ... ...


The evidence is therefore overwhelming in nature and the guilt of the appellant is established beyond any shadow of doubt. Having regard to the nature of the attack perpetrated by him on an innocent and defenceless boy and having regard to the nature and the number of injuries caused by him, there can be no doubt that the offence committed by the appellant would be nothing but murder. The appellant is not only the cousin of the deceased, and therefore bound to treat the deceased with care and kindness, but he is also a person, who has studied up to the Pre-University course and trained to act in a civilised manner. In spite of it, the appellant has acted in a brutal manner and killed an young and tender boy. The appellant has therefore to suffer the consequences of his case.


12. For the aforesaid reasons, we are unable to accept the plea of the appellant that he is innocent and the case has been foisted on him. The appeal deserves to fail and will accordingly stand dismissed.


13. Before parting with the judgment, we would like to observe that a doubt regarding the age of the appellant may not have been raised for consideration in this appeal if the Sessions Judge had taken care to ascertain the age of the appellant before recording his statement under section 313 Crl.P.C. Sometimes, the filling up of the descriptive columns in the statement of the accused is done by the ministerial staff and on such occasions, they note down the age particulars given by the accused without knowing the implications thereof. In this case, if the accused had been questioned about the date of birth and his correct age had been entered in the statement under section 313 Cr.P.C. there would have been no scope for the appellant's counsel to raise a contention that the appellant was an young person on the date of the commission of the offence. We therefore direct the Office to send a circular to all the Sessions Judges and and Assistant Sessions Judges to bring to their notice the imperative need for the Presiding Officers of Courts to have the columns in the accused's statement etc. filled up directly under their supervision.NATARAJAN, J. :- The appellant has been convicted under section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced to imprisonment for life by the Sessions Judge of Cuddalore in SC No. 21 of 1980 on the file of his Court for having committed the murder of his cousin, a ten year old boy named Manikandan by stabbing him indiscriminately all over his body with a knife at about 5 p.m. 6-7-1979 at Kalinchikuppam village. The appellant has preferred this appeal against his conviction and sentence.


2. When the appeal was taken up for hearing, Mr. Vanamamalai, learned counsel for the appellant, raised a plea that the appellant was a young person and as such, he should have been tried and sentenced according to the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Children Act and ought not to have been tried as an adult offender and sentenced to imprisonment for life, even if the evidence conclusively proved his guilt. Such a plea was not raised by the appellant either before the committing Magistrate or before the Sessions Judge. Even in the grounds of appeal, such a plea has not been taken. Notwithstanding this position, the appellant's counsel raised a plea about the age of the appellant on account of a solitary feature, viz, that the appellant while giving his statement under section 313 Cri.P.C., had given his age as 19 years. As the statement was given on 10-11-1980 and as the occurrence had taken place on 6-7-1979, viz, nearly one and a half years earlier, the appellant's counsel argued that the appellant must have been about 17-1/2 years of age on the date of commission of the offence and hence, he should have been treated as young person and tried as such. In view of this objection, we passed an order directing the Superintendent, Central Prison, Vellore, to have the appellant examined by the District Medical Officer radiologically and get a report regarding the age of the appellant. We also directed the Public Prosecutor to instruct the Police authorities to find out whether there is any birth certificate, school certificate and College certificate for the appellant, in order to know whether there is independent evidence regarding the date of birth of the appellant. Pending receipt of these records, the hearing of the appeal was postponed.


3. In view of our directions, the appellant has been radiologically examined at the Government Pentland Hospital Vellore, and an age certificate has been submitted, which is now marked as Ex. C. 1. According to the Radiologist, the appellant was aged 'above 21 years' on the date of his examination, viz, on 27-11-1982. Besides, the prosecution has also obtained copies of age certificates from the school and College where the appellant has studied and they are marked as Exs. C. 2 and 3 respectively. As per these certificates, the date of birth of the appellant is 6-5-1961. If that be the case, the appellant should have been aged 18 years and 2 months on the date of the commission of offence.


4. When the appeal was taken up for hearing on 20-1-1983, learned counsel for the appellant reiterated his earlier plea that the appellant should have been below 18 years on the date of the commission of the offence. To get over the certificate of age issued by the Radiologist, the learned counsel contended that it was only based upon the fusion of iliac crest, the Radiologist has stated that the appellant was aged over 21 years. But according to Pillai's table contained in Modi's Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology, the age of fusion of illiac crest for males in the erstwhile Madras State is 14 to 18 years and hence, the opinion given by the Radiologist cannot be a correct one. In order to get over the age certificate given by the school and college authorities, the counsel argued that those certificates have not been properly proved. In addition, he filed an affidavit sworn to by the father of the appellant. Therein, the appellant's father has stated that he got married only at the late age of 30 years and about a year later, his wife died and thereupon he took a second wife when he was about 32 years old and the appellant was the first child born through the second wife. He has stated that the appellant was therefore not even 20 years of age on the date of his swearing to the affidavit, viz, 18-1-1983. He has, however, admitted that the appellant was educated in the school and college but he had not furnished the school authorities any particulars regarding the date of birth of the appellant. Placing reliance on these two factors, the appellant's counsel argued that the certificates obtained from the school and College authorities cannot prove the age of the appellant in any manner.


5. Taking up first for consideration the certificate given by the Radiologist, we find from the certificate that the Radiologist has specifically confined his opinion to the fusion of the iliac crest. He has also reported that the lower end of radius and the lower end of ulna, which, fuse at the age of 18, have become fused. Then has referred to the fusion of the

"illiac crest. No doubt in Pillai's table in Modi's Medical Jurisprudence, the age of fusion of the crest of ilium has been given as 14 to 18 years. On that score alone, we are not prepared to accept the contention 'hat the appellant would have only completed the age of 18 and would not have completed the age of 21 on the date of Radiological examination. This is because of the fact that the fusion of bones occurs for different persons at different times and the variation is due to a multiplicity of causes, such as, the health conditions of the family in which the person was born, the climatic conditions in which he is living, the dietary habits he is accustomed to, the type of life he is leading etc. Consequently the determination of age on the basis of radiological examination can only be an approximate factor and it cannot be taken as a decisive and incontrovertible feature. Even modi has pointed out that a blind and mechanical view regarding the age of a person cannot be adopted solely on the basis of the evidence afforded by the radiological examination. At page 31 of Modi's Text Book of Medical Jurisprudence and Texicotogy, 20th Edn. it has been stated as follows :-" *


In ascertaining the age of young persons radiograms of any of the main joints of the upper or the lower extremity of both sides of the body should be taken, an opinion should be given according to the following table, but it must be remembered that too much reliance should not be placed on this table as it merely indicates an average and is likely to vary in individual cases even of the same province owing to the eccentricities of development.

"Courts have taken judicial notice of this fact and have always held that the evidence afforded by radiological examination is no doubt a useful guiding factor for determining the age of a person, but the evidence is not of a conclusive and incontrovertible nature and it is subject to a margin of error.


6. In Jaya Mala v. Home Secretary, Govt of J. and K., it was observed as follows -" *


However, it is notorious and one can take judicial notice that the margin of error in age ascertained by radiological examination is two years on either side.

"In Chathu v. P. Govindan Kutti, 1958 AIR(Ker) 121, at p. 122) : ILR 1957 Ker 591 at p. 594, it was observed as follows :-" *


We are not at all satisfied that the learned Magistrate was right in preferring the opinion of the Radiologist to the positive evidence furnished by the Municipal birth register, the school admission register and the evidence of the girl's father, particularly when medicolegal opinion is that owing to the variations in climatic, dietetic, hereditary and other factors affecting the people of the different States of India, it cannot be reasonably expected to formulate a uniform standard for the determination of the age by the extent of ossification and the union of epiphyses in bones."


It was held in Md. Syedol Ariffin v. Y. O. Gark, 1916 AIR(PC) 242, that a Doctor's certificate as to age is no proof, since it is only an assertion of an opinion. The same view was taken in Mohd. Ikram Hussain v. State of U.P.,


7. In this case, if we had no other material to determine the age of the appellant, we may have been persuaded to accept the argument of Mr. Vanamamalai, that it may not be safe to place absolute reliance on the radiologist's opinion and render a finding that the appellant should have completed 18 years of age on the date of the commission of offence. But here we have other materials, which support the opinion given by the radiologist about the age of the appellant.


8. Taking up the certificate, Ex. C. 2, it has been issued by the Head Master of the Panchayat Union Middle School, Kalinchikuppam. It refers to the admission of one V. Shanmugham, son of Venugopal in the Second standard of that school on 30-6-1967. His date of birth has been given as '06.05.61' in Tamil, the date of birth has been written as. It also mentions about the student leaving the school on 1-6-1971 on account of his being promoted to the sixth standard. According to Ex. C. 3, issued by the Principal, Government Arts College, Villupuram, the date of birth of the student V. Shanmugham son of Venugopal of Kolinchikuppam is 6-5-1961 as per the College records. The name of the appellant and his father's name as well as the name of the village from which he hails, fit in correctly with the particulars given by the appellant. There can therefore be no doubt that the documents Exs. C. 2 and C. 3 refer to the appellant and none else. Even so, Mr. Vanamalai contended that Exs. C. 2 and C. 3 should not be taken into consideration, because they have not been duly proved in the sense that the person who has admitted the appellant in the school and college, has not been examined to prove the correctness of the entries contained in the certificates. In support of his argument, he relied upon the decision in Ram Murti v. State of Haryana, where it was held that unproved and unexhibited school certificates cannot be relied upon. We are not persuaded to accept the argument of Mr. Vanamalai because the question whether a school certificate or college certificate can be taken into consideration for determining the age of a person without formal proof of the particulars contained in the certificate is a matter which has to be decided with reference to the facts of each case. In this particular case, as already stated, the records contain the names of the appellant and his father in an unambiguous manner. Moreover, the village to which he belongs is also referred to. It is significant to note that in the affidavit filed by the father of the appellant, he does not dispute that his son was admitted in the Middle School at Kalinchikuppam by him. All that he would say is that he did not give any information regarding the date of birth of his son to the school authorities. This statement cannot be accepted, because the school authorities should have asked the parent to give the date of birth of his son when they admitted him in the school. Therefore, there is an admission by the father himself about the appellant having studied in the school which has issued Ex. C. 2 certificate. As regards his studying in the College, it is not disputed by the appellant. Hence. Ex. C. 3 certificate should also refer only to him. In the very nature of things, the appellant should have his S.S.L.C. certificate as well. The Public Prosecutor stated that the Inspector of Police tried to get the S.S.L.C. book; but the appellant's father told him that the appellant was having the book and when the appellant was questioned he denied having the book. Therefore, he stated that the appellant was wantonly keeping the book back, lest its production would shatter his contention that he was a youthful offender on the date of occurrence. Mr. Vanamalai, however, produced a Zerox copy of the relevant page in the S.S.L.C. book which is now marked as Ex. C. 4, and it gives the details of the appellant's name, age etc. Even Ex. C. 4 refers to the date of birth of the appellant only as 8-5-1961. On account of all these factors, we do not think any formal proof is necessary to connect the entries in Exs. C. 2 to C. 4 with the appellant. In this connection, we may only refer to a decision in Anadi Mohan v. Rabindranath, 1962 AIR(Cal) 265 at p. 267 : 65 Cal WN 1165 at p. 1169 where it was held that matriculation certificate is admissible under section 35 of the Evidence Act, for determining the age of a person. We are therefore satisfied that Exs. C. 2 to C. 4 refer to the appellant and none else and on the basis of the entries contained therein, the appellant should have been born on 6-5-1961.


9. However, Mr. Vanamalai placed reliance on the affidavit filed by the appellant's father and argued that the appellant could not have been born on 6-5-1961. In the circumstances in which the father has come to file the affidavit, we are not prepared to attach any weight to it. When the appellant has been found guilty under section 302 I.P.C., and sentenced to imprisonment for life and when at the stage of appeal a question is raised about the age of the appellant at the time of occurrence, in order to set at naught the conviction and more than that, the sentence of life imprisonment; any father placed in the position of the appellant's father would not allow himself to be stricken down b

y conscience and refuse to file an affidavit in support of the plea of his son that he was an young person at the time of occurrence. It would require a Mahatma like the Father of the Nation to refuse to come to the aid of his son in a situation like this and accept that the entries contained in the school register reflect the correct state of affairs and he had given the particulars regarding the date of birth of his son to the school authorities at the relevant time. 10. For the foregoing, reasons, we hold that the appellant should have been born on 6-5-1961 and he should have been aged 18 years and two months on the date of occurrence and as such, he was not an young person at the relevant time. The learned Sessions Judge was therefore right in treating the appellant as an adult offender and holding the trial accordingly. 11. Coming now to the facts of the case, the prosecution case is briefly as follows : Govindasami, father of the deceased Manikandan Venugopal father of the appellant and P.W. 1, Narayanaswami are brothers and all of them were living in a village called Kalinchikuppam. Deceased Nanikandan was aged only ten years and was studing in a school.... ... ... ... ... The evidence is therefore overwhelming in nature and the guilt of the appellant is established beyond any shadow of doubt. Having regard to the nature of the attack perpetrated by him on an innocent and defenceless boy and having regard to the nature and the number of injuries caused by him, there can be no doubt that the offence committed by the appellant would be nothing but murder. The appellant is not only the cousin of the deceased, and therefore bound to treat the deceased with care and kindness, but he is also a person, who has studied up to the Pre-University course and trained to act in a civilised manner. In spite of it, the appellant has acted in a brutal manner and killed an young and tender boy. The appellant has therefore to suffer the consequences of his case. 12. For the aforesaid reasons, we are unable to accept the plea of the appellant that he is innocent and the case has been foisted on him. The appeal deserves to fail and will accordingly stand dismissed. 13. Before parting with the judgment, we would like to observe that a doubt regarding the age of the appellant may not have been raised for consideration in this appeal if the Sessions Judge had taken care to ascertain the age of the appellant before recording his statement under section 313 Crl.P.C. Sometimes, the filling up of the descriptive columns in the statement of the accused is done by the ministerial staff and on such occasions, they note down the age particulars given by the accused without knowing the implications thereof. In this case, if the accused had been questioned about the date of birth and his correct age had been entered in the statement under section 313 Cr.P.C. there would have been no scope for the appellant's counsel to raise a contention that the appellant was an young person on the date of the commission of the offence. We therefore direct the Office to send a circular to all the Sessions Judges and and Assistant Sessions Judges to bring to their notice the imperative need for the Presiding Officers of Courts to have the columns in the accused's statement etc. filled up directly under their supervision.