SATVEER VALMIKI Vs. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision has been directed against the judgment and order dated 26.10.2005 rendered Sessions Judge, Pithoragarh in criminal appeal no. 31 of 2004 thereby upholding the conviction and sentence dated 06.10.2004 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Didihat, District Pithoragarh in criminal case no. 388 of 2004. The revisionist was tried for the offence under Section 377 IPC pertaining to crime no. 26 of 2004 police station Jauljivi, District Pithoragarh and the learned Magistrate found him guilty for the said offence and sentenced him to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment nay a fine of Rs. 2000/- and in default of payment, he was further directed to undergo three months additional imprisonment.

(2.) Learned counsel for the revisionist has argued that the date of incident was 20.03.2004 while date of birth revisionist is 01.07.1988, so at the time of commission of alleged crime he was 15-year, 8-month, 19-day old i.e. below the age of 18 years, thus he was juvenile , as envisaged under Section 2 (k) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (Act No. 56 of 2000) (for brevity hereinafter called as the Act ).

(3.) Learned counsel for the revisionist has further argued that this plea was also taken before the Magistrate, which finds mention at page no. 14 of the judgment, but the learned Magistrate was of the view that entry in the Family Register had been interpolated by cutting date of birth from 01.07.1985 and making it 01.07.1988. He has also expressed his view that in the case diary as well as in the medico legal report prepared by police and doctor respectively, the age of revisionist was mentioned as 19 years, so the Magistrate did not accept the argument of juvenility of revisionist while passing the order of conviction.