SUNIL KUMAR Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE accused/applications have preferred this criminal revision under Section 397 of the Cr.P.C, being aggrieved by the order dated 27.5.2003 passed in S.T. No. 298/2002 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Manendragarh, District Korea, by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge has framed the charges against the accused/applicants for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the I.P.C.

(2.) AS per the prosecutor case, all the accused persons after forming common intention on the main road in front of Rajeshwar Singh Flour (Chakki) assaulted one Anantlal by sword with intention to kill him and on the report of Anantlal the case was registered by P.S. Manendragarh and after investigation charge sheet was filed against the accused/applicants for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the I.P.C.

(3.) AT the outset the learned counsel for the applicants submits that he is not pressing this revision as far as applicant No. 1 Sunil Kumar is concerned. Counsel further submitted that as far as the question of Sushil Kumar @ Lala and Niraj Raj @ Golu are concerned, they were juvenile on the date of offence i.e. 19-1-2001 and in support of his argument counsel for the applicants submitted that the charge sheet submitted by the police itself shows the age of these two accused/applicants as 17 years. He further submitted that certified copy issued by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Manendragarh also shows the age of these two accused/applicants as 17 years. Counsel further submitted that in spite of the mandatory provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, the accused persons are not being dealt with in accordance with the provisions of juvenile Justice Act, 2000 which came into force on 1st April 2001. Counsel further submitted that in view of the charge sheet of the police itself both these accused persons are juvenile and they should have been sent to the Juvenile Board for appropriate proceeding as per the Juvenile Justice Act, but the learned Additional Sessions Judge has not complied with the mandatory provisions of the Act and proceeded with the trial. In this regard the relevant provisions of Juvenile Justice Act are Sections 7 and 49 which reads as under: -