MOHAMMAD @ NOOR MOHAMMAD Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision has been filed against the order dated 20.2.2009 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 2, Jaunpur in S.T. No. 411 of 2008, State v. Amir and Ors.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that on 31.7.2008 at about 7.00 p.m. in village Mani Kala, P.S. Kheta Sarai, District Jaunpur, an altercation took place between the revisionist and one Akram. The revisionist started abusing Akram. In the meanwhile opposite party No. 2 Habibulla alongwith his brother Shukurullah reached at the scene of altercation. They rebuked the revisionist and asked him not to abuse Akram and his family members. An enraged revisionist went inside his house and came out holding a knife in his hand alongwith his brother Amir and started inflicting knife blows upon Shukurullah. Shukurullah received severe knife injuries, fell down on the ground and died at the spot. An F.I.R. was lodged with the police on the same day at about 8.15 p.m. The matter was investigated and a charge-sheet was submitted in the Court of the learned Magistrate. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the case and after completing other legal formalities committed the case to the court of Sessions. The Sessions Trial was registered as S.T. No. 411 of 2008 and it was transferred for trial to the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Court No. 2, Jaunpur. Both the accused were produced before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge where they moved an application, apparently under Section 7A of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (for short 'the Act'). The learned trial Judge disposed of the said application after collecting the evidence relating to various facts about the age of both the charge-sheeted accused persons. He had recorded the statements of a few witnesses and examined the documents filed before him. After hearing the arguments on the said application under Section 7A of the Act, the learned Judge declared Mohd. Amir a juvenile but he was of the opinion that on the relevant date the revisionist was not a juvenile and on that date his age was above 18 years and, therefore, he turned down his prayer. Feeling aggrieved by the order declaring Amir a juvenile, the opposite party No. 2, Habibullah moved a criminal revision before this Court being Crl. Revision No. 1082 of 2009 in which the revisionist has challenged the finding of the learned trial Judge as far as it related to the age of the accused Amir. The abovementioned revision was dismissed by this Court on 31.3.2009.

(3.) On the other hand feeling aggrieved by the order of the learned trial Judge the revisionist Mohammad alias Noor Mohammad preferred the present revision on the ground that his contentions were not accepted by the learned lower court wherein he had claimed that he was a juvenile on the relevant date.