(1.) The appellant had preferred a Bail Application, Crl. M. (Bail) 278/2009 in which he claimed inter alia that he was a juvenile on the date of commission of the offence. The Court had, therefore, ordered an enquiry under Section 7-A of the Juvenile Justice Act, into this aspect. After lapse of almost two years, when the matter was taken-up, the Court noticed that the progress of enquiry was very slow and accordingly directed the appellant to be enlarged on bail by its order dated 28.07.2011 (in Crl. M. (Bail) 278/2009). The applicant was unable to furnish reduced surety for the sum of Rs. 2500/- and moved Crl. M.A. 10880/2011. In the meanwhile, pursuant to the previous directions, the Court received the report of the enquiry by the Trial Court dated 24.09.2011.
(2.) The Appellant, along with a co-accused, was convicted for committing the offence punishable under Section 302/34 IPC, by the impugned judgment, dated 27-9-2004. We have considered the same and heard counsel for the parties.
(3.) The Appellant contended that he was a juvenile, being about 14 years at the time of commission of the offence. On the basis of his averments, and submissions made on his behalf, the Trial Court directed investigation, to enquire into the truth of such an assertion; accordingly, a team of the Delhi Police visited District Purab Midnapore in West Bengal. The material gathered, in the form of CW-1, and inspector in the Delhi Police s statementcorroborated by a certificate from the Principal of the local village school is to the effect that according to the contemporaneous school records, the Appellant s date of birth was 10-07- 1987. As far as the medical opinion is concerned, the certificate issued by the medical authorities, in this case, reveals that as on the date of his examination, the Appellant s bone age indicated that he was between 25 and 40 years. Considering these materials, the Trial Court formed the opinion to base its report, that the Appellant was 13 years, 5 months and 12 days on the date of the offence.