PAPPU Vs. SONU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court allowing the Writ Petition filed by respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 1 filed a Revision Petition against the order dated 10.7.2007 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge Fast Track Court-I, Mazaffarnagar. The petition filed by respondent No. 1 claiming that he was a juvenile was rejected. The respondent No. 1 was facing trial in S.T. No. 67/07. During trial he moved the application marked 13Kha for declaring him as juvenile pleading that his date of birth was 1.1.1989.

(3.) In support of the claim he relied on various records as well as the statements of his father and mother. Objections were filed by the State and the informant stating that the applicant was a major on the date of occurrence and, therefore, the application was liable to be rejected. The learned Additional Sessions Judge did not rely on the educational records and the statements of the mother as well as of the medical opinion. It was concluded that the applicant was not juvenile. The High Court in the revision petition accepted that the school records produced by the applicant were not reliable and the statement of his mother also did not support his case. But solely on the basis of a certificate issued by the doctor it was concluded that he was below 18 years of age on the date of occurrence and, therefore, in terms of Rule 22(5) of Uttar Pradesh Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2004 the applicant was to be treated as a juvenile.