HARI OM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By virtue of this Revision Petition, the Petitioner impugns an order dated 18.05.2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge("ASJ") whereby the Petitioner's plea that he was a juvenile was rejected.

(2.) It is urged by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that plea of juvenility can be raised by the Petitioner at any stage and even during the pendency of the Appeal. The Petitioner produced sufficient evidence before the learned ASJ to prove that his date of birth was 13.06.1993 and thus he was aged only 14 years on the alleged date of commission of the offence, that is, 20.03.2007. The learned ASJ was, however, swayed by the fact that as per the ossification test, his age was found to be about 21 years. The learned ASJ, therefore, declined to believe the evidence with regard to his date of birth as given in the certificate issued by the school first attended. Paras 8 to 14 of the impugned judgment are extracted hereunder:

(3.) The learned APP supports the view taken by the learned ASJ.