Court No. - 18 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 178 of 2010 Petitioner :- Sanoj Respondent :- State Of U.P. Petitioner Counsel :- Govind Singh Bot Respondent Counsel :- Govt. Advocate Hon'ble S.N.H. Zaidi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. and perused the
record.
This revision has been filed against the order dated 13.04.2010 passed by the
Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.6, Gonda in Sessions Trial No.161 of
2008, State vs. Raja Ram & others, whereby the learned Court has rejected
the application of the accused-revisionist after holding that the accused-
revisionist was more than 18 years of age on the date of the incident.
Submission of the learned counsel for revisionist is that the age of the
revisionist was got determined by the trial court on his application, as
according to the revisionist he was below 18 years of age and a juvenile on
the date of incident, that is, 28.04.2008. The order impugned, Annexure no.4,
shows that the age of the revisionist was determined by the Chief Medical
Officer after his radiological examination was conducted on 15.12.2009 and
on the basis of x-ray reports, he was found to be of 20 years of age. The
learned trial court held that on the date of incident the revisionist was aged
about 18 years 5 months and 13 days and thus a major. It is submitted by the
revisionist’s counsel that in determining the age of the revisionist the learned
Court did not take into account clause (b) of sub-rule (3) of Rule 12 of the
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, which reads as
under:-
“(b) and only in the absence of either (i), (ii) or (iii) of clause (a) above, the
medical opinion will be sought from a duly constituted Medical Board, which
will declare the age of the juvenile or child. In case exact assessment of the
age cannot be done, the Court or the Board or, as the case may be, the
Committee, for the reasons to be recorded by them, may, if considered
necessary, give benefit to the child or juvenile by considering his/her age on
lower side within the margin of one year.”
It is also contended that after giving the margin of one year on the lower side
as provided in the above clause, the age of the revisionist on the date of his
ossification test, i.e. on 15.12.2009, would come to 19 years, instead of 20
years and thus he would be below 18 years of age on 28.04.2008, the date of
incident.
The above contention of the revisionist’s counsel appears to have force as the
learned A.G.A. could not show that while determining the age of the
revisionist, the learned court below had taken the provisions of Rule 12 (3) (b)
of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 into
account and had determined the age as per law.
In view of above, the impugned cannot be allowed to sustain and requires
interference. The impugned order is hereby set aside and the learned trial
court is directed to dispose of the accused-revisionist’s application 31-Kha
afresh in accordance with law.
The revision is, accordingly, allowed.
Order Date :- 29.6.2010
ank