KUSUM DEVI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CASE called out in the revised list. None responds on behalf of the revisionist to press this revision.

(2.) THE brief facts giving rise to the present revision are that the trial Court passed an order 20.4.2007 on the application dated 2.4.2007 of the revisionist for considering his application for being declared juvenile directed the Juvenile Justice Board Bareilly which in pursuance to the order considered the application of opposite party No. 2 and finding that as the age of opposite party No. 2 Vikram Singh @ Vikki cannot be ascertained from the family register and the school certificate, hence it ordered that the medical examination of opposite party No. 2 which was conducted on 22.2.2007 in which he was found to be on the date of incident being 19 years 7 months and 12 days of age. The trial Court rejected the application of opposite party No. 2 for declaring him juvenile vide order dated 23.10.2007 of the Juvenile Justice Board. The opposite party No. 2 being aggrieved filed an appeal before the Additional District and Session Judge, Court No. 7 Bareilly and the lower appellate Court also confirmed that the Juvenile Justice Board was right in getting the age of opposite party No. 2 medically examined in view of the fact that the age of accused opposite party No. 2 could not be ascertained on the basis of school certificate and the family register and had rightly ordered for the medical examination of opposite party No. 2. But the lower appellant Court treating the age of opposite party No. 2 as 19 years 7 months 12 day as held by the Juvenile Justice Board considering the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Vimal Chaddha v. Vikas Chaudhary,, 2008 LAWS 5 (SC) 19. has observed that it is a established preposition of law that two years variations can be considered as per the age recorded in the medical report and placed reliance in the case of Vimal Chaddha (Supra) and taken into account the said judgment of the Apex Court considered that as per medical report though the accused has been found to be major as his date of birth according to the medical examination was 19 years 7 months and 12 days and after relaxation of two years on the lower side is given to the accused then his age would come to 17 years 7 months and 12 days, hence on this assumption has set aside the order of Juvenile Justice Board declaring the opposite party No. 2 to be a juvenile. Learned counsel for opposite party No. 2 has argued that the lower revisional Court has rightly given the benefit of two years to the accused opposite party No. 2 on the basis of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Vimal Chaddha (Supra), hence the order of the appellate Court has rightly set aside the order of the Juvenile Justice Board.

(3.) CONSIDERED the submission of the counsel for the parties.