SURENDRA Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant-applicant Surendra whose 5th bail prayer we are considering by this order was tried for offences under section 302/364-A/201 I.P.C. by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 9, Ghaziabad in S.T. No. 80 of 1998, State v. Surendra. While facing trial appellant, by filing an application for that end prayed before the learned Trial Judge that he be declared a juvenile in consonance with the provisions of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, hereinafter referred to as the Act. For determining appellant's age he was got medically examined and vide CMO's report dated 25.9.2002 he was adjudged 22 years of age. Recapitulated here is the fact that the incident in question had occurred on 14.7.1997 and hence, according to the medical examination report appellant was about 16 years and 10 months on the date of commission of the offence. Learned XIII Additional Sessions Judge, who considered the question of appellant's juvenility, vide his order dated 28.8.2002, held that appellant was more than 16 years of age on the date of commission of offence and hence rejected his aforementioned application and/or prayer and resultantly appellant was not declared to be juvenile and his trial proceeded treating him to be an adult and ultimately he was found guilty of the charged offences and consequently was convicted and sentenced for the aforesaid offences for life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 3,000/- and in default thereof to serve six months RI for the first charge of murder, 10 years RI with fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default to serve 15 days additional imprisonment and 3 years RI with fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to serve 15 days additional imprisonment for rest of the two charges of kidnapping and causing disappearance of evidences of the offence. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently vide judgment and order dated 27.5.2008.

(2.) Appellant has challenged impugned judgment of his conviction and sentence in this appeal, which has been admitted for final determination. In the memo of appeal vide ground (K), it was pleaded that appellant was 15 years of age on the date of the incident calculating it from his date of birth mentioned in his Secondary School Examination certificate, wherein it was recorded as 10.2.1982.

(3.) At the first instance appellant's bail prayer, under section 389 Cr.P.C. was considered and rejected on 31.7.2008 as the Bench did not find any reason to grant him bail.