SIDDU Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is filed calling in question the order dated 23.02.2015 passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Bidar, in Spl. Case No. 4/2015 refusing to transfer the Spl. Case No. 4/2015 to the Juvenile Justice Board for further proceedings.

(2.) I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned HCGP for the Respondent -State.

(3.) DURING the course of investigation in Crime No. 87/2014, it appears the accused has approached the Sessions Court for grant of bail during investigation, the learned Sessions Judge has referred the accused to Juvenile Justice Board on considering the materials on record by tentatively holding that the accused was aged 17 years and 14 days. Subsequently, it appears the police have submitted the charge sheet before the Juvenile Justice Board on the ground that the accused was a minor. The Juvenile Justice Board has rejected the bail petition at the earlier stages. Further, it is seen from the orders of the Juvenile Justice Board that it suspected the age of the accused, therefore, for the purpose of } determining the age of the accused, the Investigating Officer was directed to obtain the opinion of the Medical Board to that effect. Accordingly, the Investigating Officer secured the opinion of the Medical Authority of Victoria Hospital at Bangalore and after thorough examination, the authority of the Victoria Hospital has issued a certificate that the accused was aged more than 20 years. In view of the above said document, the Juvenile Justice Board again referred the matter to the Principal District and Sessions Judge, requesting to pass appropriate orders with regard to the age of the accused, whether he was a Juvenile or not. At that particular juncture, after going through the entire materials on record, including the charge sheet papers and the opinion of the Victoria Hospital at Bengaluru, the learned Sessions Judge was of the opinion that the age of the accused has to be decided during the course of the trial. The learned Sessions Judge has also observed that Section 34 of POCSO Act, 2012 to be followed for determining the age of the accused during the course of the trial and since the prosecution has placed all the materials at its best, an opportunity has to be given to the prosecution to lead evidence to determine the age of the accused along with the regular trial.