LAWS(ALL)-2013-10-23

RAVINDRA KUMAR Vs. STATE OF U.P.

Decided On October 11, 2013
RAVINDRA KUMAR Appellant
V/S
STATE OF U.P. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Opposite party no. 2 Dharmpal lodged a case on 23.9.2010 at Police Station Doghat, district Baghpat against the revisionist Ravindra Kumar and one Ankit. The allegations are that both the accused persons named in the F.I.R. intercepted the minor girl of opposite party no. 2, dragged her inside a tubewell room and thereafter revisionist committed rape upon the girl. After lodging of the F.I.R. the matter was investigated and a chargesheet was filed against the revisionist. The case was committed to the court of Sessions. During the course of trial the revisionist moved an application before the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge claiming himself to be a juvenile. He stated that his date of birth is 3.4.1995 and on the relevant date he was less than 18 years of age. The learned Additional Sessions Judge made a detailed inquiry to determine the age of the revisionist. He examined various papers and recorded statements of some persons. Thereafter, vide his order dated 5.7.2010 he held that on the relevant date the revisionist was above 18 years of age and, therefore, the sessions trial will continue to proceed in his court. Feeling aggrieved by such order the present revision has been filed.

(2.) I have heard Sri Amit Daga, learned counsel for the revisionist, Mr. Ram Raj Pandey, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 as well as the learned A.G.A. and perused the records. I have also perused the case laws produced before me.

(3.) It has been submitted from the side of the revisionist that the learned Judge has not given the benefit of one year to the revisionist as has been provided in Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children), Rules, 2007 (for short the Rules) He has also stated that due to this reason the revisionist could not get the benefit of a welfare legislation. It has also been argued by Mr. Daga that if margin of one year is given to the revisionist he shall be declared a juvenile and his case shall be referable to the Board.