SIYA RAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S .C. Agarwal, J. - Heard learned Counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record. No notice is issued to private opposite party in view of the order proposed to be passed today, however, liberty is reserved for private opposite party to apply for variation or modification of this order if he/she feels so aggrieved. This revision under section 53 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (here-in-after referred to as the 'Act') is directed against the order dated 6.7.2010 passed by III Addl. Sessions Judge, Mathura in Sessions Trial No. 92 of 2001 State Vs. Hardayal & others in case crime no.352 of 2000 under sections 364. 307, 302 IPC, P.S. Kosi Kalan, District Mathura whereby Application (Paper) No.127 moved on behalf of the accused revisionist Siya Ram for declaring himself to be a juvenile was rejected on the ground that this issue was raised earlier and the matter was referred to the Juvenile Justice Board and after conclusion of the trial, this plea cannot be entertained at the instance of the accused.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the revisionist submitted that on an application moved by the accused under Section 7A of the Act for declaring himself to be a juvenile, the trial court was bound to hold an inquiry, as envisaged under Section 7A of the Act and to decide it in accordance with Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules 2007') as to whether the accused was a juvenile in conflict with law on the date of incident or not. Learned counsel submitted that on earlier application, the matter was not referred to Juvenile Justice Board and no report of Juvenile Justice Board is on record of the trial.

(3.) THERE is no escape from the conclusion that once an application under Section 7A of the Act is filed before any Court, the Court is bound to hold an inquiry, as envisaged under Section 7A of the Act and to take a decision in accordance with Rule 12 of the Rules 2007, as quoted above, to find out the age of the accused on the date of the incident, as nearly as possible, to conclude whether on the date of offence, the accused was juvenile or not. Learned trial court has not adopted the procedure and mandate provided under Section 7A of the Act. A reference to Juvenile Justice Board is not necessary and it is the duty of the trial court to hold inquiry itself. Plea of juvenile can be taken by the accused at any stage of trial.