ROHIT @ ABHISHEK SHUKLA Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision under Section 53 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the ''Act') is directed against the order dated 21.7.2010 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Court No. 3, Farrukhabad, whereby the application 36-B filed by the accused Rohit @ Abhishek Shukla for declaring him a juvenile in conflict with law was rejected.

(2.) OBJECTIONS were filed by the prosecution on the ground that copy of the Scholar Register and Mark-sheet were forged and original documents should be summoned. The accused was major at the time of incident. The name of the accused is Rohit whereas the educational certificates and the mark-sheet are in the name of Abhishik Shukla.

(3.) THE contention is that the educational certificate belong to the son of Kunti and Vimlesh Chand Shukla, who are admittedly the parents of the revisionist. It is not the case of the State and complainant that there is some other brother of the revisionist by the name of Abhishek shukla. Therefore, learned trial court should have held that Abhishek Shukla and Rohit Shukla are one and the same person. The parents of the revisionists could have been examined by the trial court and the police could also have been directed to make an enquiry as to whether the educational certificates or mark-sheet belong to the revisionist or not and the application of the revisionist should not have been dismissed merely on the basis that the name of the accused in the record of the Sessions Trial i.e. personal bond, application for warrant recall and charge-sheet etc. is Rohit Shukla whereas the certificate and the mark-sheet belong to one Abhishek Shukla. Learned counsel further submitted that it was the duty of the prosecution to establish that Abhishek Shukla is some one else other than the revisionist.