CASE NO.: Special Leave Petition (crl.) 2892 of 2007 PETITIONER: Arun Kumar RESPONDENT: The State of Bihar and Anr DATE OF JUDGMENT: 19/02/2008 BENCH: Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT & P. SATHASIVAM JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2008
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.2892 of 2007)
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a
learned Single Judge of the Patna High Court quashing the
order passed by learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track
Court Vth, Shekhpura. By the said order the learned
Additional Sessions Judge held that respondent No.2-Munna
Kumar was not juvenile and, therefore, there was no need to
refer his case to the Juvenile Justice Board for ascertaining of
his age and, then for trial. It was observed by the High Court
that the prayer was rejected only on the ground that two or
three witnesses were examined and though the accused was in
possession of School Leaving Certificate, mark sheet etc. to
show that he was a juvenile, the prayer could not have been
rejected. The High Court in a very cryptic manner observed
that the application of the accused deserved to be allowed and
directed the court below to consider the accused as a juvenile
and to proceed accordingly.
3. Learned counsel for the informant submitted that the
documents produced had been analysed by the trial Court and
it was categorically held that at the time of framing charge on
observation it was noticed that he was major without any
doubt. In the certificate filed his name was disclosed to be
Priyatam Bihari though all through his name was stated to be
Munna Kumar. Learned Single Judge of the High Court did
not even consider as to how the conclusions of the trial Court
suffered from any infirmity. Merely referring to the stand of the
accused and even without analyzing the correctness or
otherwise of the observations and conclusions made by the
trial Court he came to hold that the accused was a juvenile.
Additionally, the complainant was a party before the High
Court but no notice was issued. There is no appearance on
behalf of respondent No.2-accused.
4. Learned counsel for the State supported the stand of the
informant.
5. The High Court has failed to notice several relevant
factors. Firstly, at the time of framing charges, the age of the
accused was recorded as major. Similarly, the difference in
names in the documents has not been explained by the
accused.
6. Further, as rightly contended by learned counsel for
appellant, no discussion has been made as to how the
conclusions of the trial Court suffered from any infirmity.
7. Finally, no notice was issued to the appellant before the
mater was disposed of.
8. Above being the position, the impugned order of the High
Court is set aside and the matter is remitted to it to consider
the matter afresh and pass a reasoned order in accordance
with law.
9. The appeal is allowed.