RAKHI PANCHAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Revision Petition is directed against an order dated 25.10.2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge(ASJ) whereby the learned ASJ declared the date of birth of Respondent No.7 Arun Kumar @ Monu to be 10.11.1993. Thus, on the date of the alleged commission of the offence, he was found to be less than 18 years and thus a juvenile. The Respondent No.7 was, therefore, directed to be produced before the Juvenile Justice Board for inquiry in accordance with the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000(the Act).

(2.) THE case of the Petitioner who is the Complainant in respect of FIR No.607/2011 recorded in Police Station(P.S.) Jagat Puri is that the Respondent No.7 committed sexual intercourse with her on the false promise of marriage. He also committed carnal intercourse against the order of nature. After completion of the investigation, a report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was preferred against the Respondent No.7. After the case was committed to the Court of Session, the impugned order (dated 25.10.2012) was passed by the learned ASJ. For the sake of convenience, it will be apposite to extract the order hereunder:

(3.) THE learned counsel for the Respondent No.7, on the other hand, has urged that the Certificate issued by the Registrar of Birth and Death is an authentic document and has to be preferred to a Certificate of Date of Birth as per the record of the school attended by an accused. Thus, the learned ASJ rightly held the Respondent No.7 to be a juvenile. The learned counsel for the Respondent No.7 urges that in pursuance of the order dated 25.10.2012, the inquiry was completed by the Juvenile Justice Board and the Respondent No.7 had been acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 376/377 IPC. The learned counsel for the Respondent No.7 refers to Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure(Code) to emphasize that since the Respondent No.7 stands acquitted by the Juvenile Justice Board, the only remedy available to the Petitioner was to file an Appeal against acquittal. The Criminal Revision Petition preferred by the Petitioner is, therefore, not maintainable.