RAHUL JANGDE Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been preferred against order dated 12.01.2021 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.)/ Special Judge (POCSO)/ Child Court, Korba, DistrictKorba (C.G.) in Special Case (POCSO) No. 35/2019, dismissing the application filed by the applicant under Section 91 of the Cr.P.C.

(2.) It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is being prosecuted for charges under Section 363 & 376 of I.P.C. and Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The applicant has raised a plea that he was juvenile on the date of incident, however, the learned trial court has initiated an enquiry for determination of age of the applicant. It was during pendency of this enquiry, the applicant made a prayer under Section 91 of the Cr.P.C. to summon the documents of Kotwari Register from office of the Collector. The applicant has earlier made an attempt to obtain copy of Kotwari Panji through R.T.I., but he could not succeed. Prayer of the applicant has been rejected by the impugned order.

(3.) It is submitted that the impugned order is erroneous. The document prayed for summon by the applicant was essential for determination of the question of juvenility of the applicant. The reason assigned in the impugned order is that the document of Kotwari Panji, does not found mention in Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (for short "the Act, 2015"). It is further submitted that in case of Sunil Vs. State of Haryana,2009 CJ(SC) 1724, the Hon'ble Supreme Court specifically directed that in what manner, age of the minor victim shall be determined. This direction is similarly applicable in determination of age of the juvenile also. Further, relying on judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Orissa Vs. Debendra Nath Padhi , 2003 2 SCC 711, it has been held that the accused has entitlement to seek order under Section 91 of the Cr.P.C. In the present case, the applicant is claiming himself to be a juvenile and for being treated as juvenile offender. Hence, invoking of Section 91 of the Cr.P.C. by the applicant, is not barred, therefore, the impugned order is not sustainable, which is liable to be set aside and it is prayed that relief may be granted to the applicant.