USHA Vs. STATE INSPECTOR OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision case filed by the aggrieved first accused against the order passed by the Fast Track Court No.I, Tirunelveli in refusing to consider the first accused as the juvenile accused and to pass orders thereon.

(2.) THE gist of the case submitted by the revision petitioner before the lower Court are briefly stated as follows: THE petitioner is the first accused against whom charge sheet has been filed under Sections 449, 120(B), 201, 302 and 380 r/w. 34 of Indian Penal Code and the said charge sheet was taken on file and committed to Sessions Court and the case was filed in S.C.No.461 of 2007 and after the full-fledged trial, it is posted to 31.03.2008 for judgment. THE alleged occurrence was said to have taken place on 11.05.2007 and on the said date, the petitioner was aged only 17 years and the date of birth as per the Transfer Certificate and the Secondary School Leaving Certificate is 11.01.1990. THE case filed against the petitioner/first accused should have been proceeded and tried under Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 before the Juvenile Justice Board. THErefore, the case of the petitioner should be splited from the main case and transferred to the file of the Juvenile Justice Board and the Juvenile Justice Board alone is competent to pass judgment against the petitioner.

(3.) THE lower Court after appraising both oral and documentary evidence had come to the conclusion that the petitioner is always entitled to file petition seeking to declare herself as juvenile at any stage of the proceedings as per Section 7(A) of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 and however the petitioner did not prove that she was born on 11.01.1990 and in the police records, she was described as Usha aged about 23 years whereas her name was mentioned in all the records produced by the petitioner as Karpagaand the petitioner used to sign asonly and therefore, the petitioner did not show that bothand Karpagaare one and the same person. THErefore, the age given by the respondent in warrants and other documents that she was aged about 23 years would be correct and the same was confirmed by the radiology report produced by Radiologist of Tirunelveli Medical College Hospital that the petitioner could have been aged about 21 years as on 02.04.2008 should be true. Against the said findings of the lower Court, the Criminal Revision has been preferred and was contended that the order passed by the lower Court was against all cannons of law without accepting the proved fact and therefore, the said order should have been interfered and set aside.