CHANDERJEET KUMAR @ KISHAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Crl. M. A. No. 14463/2016 in CRL.A. 371/2015

(2.) We have heard learned counsel for the parties. By way of the present application, the applicant has urged that an inquiry had been conducted as to the age of the appellant on the date of commission of the offence. Reliance is placed on a report dated 10th June, 2016 given by the Court of learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, North-West, Rohini to the effect that as on 11th February, 2016 when the applicant was subjected to a medical examination, it has been opined that he was at least 22 years of age, as per the report of the inquiry of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. The date of offence in the present case is 8th January, 2007. Therefore, after giving benefit of two years on the lower side, the convict would have been below the age of 18 years on that date. Consequently, the applicant has been declared to have been covered within the definition of a juvenile on the date of commission of the offence within the meaning of expression under Section 2(35) of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2015.

(3.) It is essential to note a few facts for the purpose of deciding the present application.