JABAR SINGH Vs. DINESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) The appellant is the father of Prahalad Singh, who is alleged to have been murdered by the Respondent No. 1, and he has filed this appeal against the order dated 18.08.2006 of the High Court of Rajasthan in S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 166 of 2006 in which the High Court has held that the Respondent No. 1 was a juvenile on the date of commission of the offence and has directed that the matter will be remitted for trial under the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (for short, "the Act").

(3.) The relevant facts very briefly are that on 11.07.2004 one Bhomaram lodged a complaint in Pratap Nagar Police Station, Jodhpur, against the Respondent No. 1 and others alleging the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, "the IPC") along with other offences under the IPC. A criminal case was registered and after investigation, the police filed chargesheet against inter alia the Respondent No. 1 and the case was transferred by the Sessions Judge to the Special Judge, SC /ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Jodhpur, for trial. Before the charges could be framed in the case, an application was filed on behalf of Respondent No. 1 under Section 49 of the Act, stating therein that the date of birth of Respondent No. 1 was 05.10.1988 and, therefore, on 11.07.2004, when the offence is alleged to have been committed, the Respondent No. 1 was less than 18 years of age and he was, thus, a juvenile and has to be tried separately from the other accused under the Act. The State of Rajasthan, in its reply, stated inter alia that the Respondent No. 1 did not disclose that he was a juvenile at any time during the investigation of the case or during the trial of other criminal cases for which he was being tried and that he has taken this plea for the first time to avoid the trial for the heinous crime and that the application of Respondent No. 1 should be rejected. The Respondent No. 1 examined witnesses and produced documents in support of his claim that he was a juvenile. The State of Rajasthan did not produce any evidence. The trial court, after hearing the parties and considering the evidence, rejected the application of the Respondent No. 1 by order dated 14.02.2006. Aggrieved, the Respondent No. 1 filed S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 166 of 2006 before the High Court and by the impugned order dated 18.08.2006, the High Court allowed the Revision Petition, set aside the order dated 14.02.2006 passed by the trial court and remitted the matter to the trial court for trial of the Respondent No. 1 treating him to be a juvenile on the date of commission of the alleged offence in accordance with the provisions of the Act.