ANNU @ VIKRAM Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Counter-Affidavit filed today is taken on record.

(2.) Learned Additional Sessions Judge conducted an inquiry under Section 7A of the Act, examined the witnesses C.W. 1 Madhuri Devi - mother of the revisionist and C.W. 2 Urmila Singh - the Principal of Primary School, Dhanapur, Barsathi, Jaunpur. A copy of the T.C. Showing 18.7.1995 to be the date of birth of the revisionist was also filed and the revisionist was further subjected to cross-examine by a duly constituted Medical Board. The medical examination was conducted on 23.5.2012 and according to the report of Medical Board, the approximate age of the revisionist was about 18 years.

(3.) It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that even if learned Additional Sessions Judge found the date of birth recorded in the school records untrustworthy, the medical opinion should not have been disbelieved, but should have been adopted and according to the medical opinion, the accused was about 17 years of age on the date of incident and, therefore, learned Additional Sessions Judge committed illegality in rejecting the application moved on behalf of the revisionist.