GAJENDRA SINGH @ RINKU Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri A. Kumar Singh, learned Counsel for the applicant, Sri J.S. Audichya learned Counsel for the complainant and the learned A.G.A. The learned Counsel for the applicant has invited my attention towards Annexure-7, which is the order granting bail to co-accused Sanjay. I have perused the said order in which though the role of firing was attributed to accused Sanjay but he was granted bail, giving the benefit of juvenile to accused Sanjay. The learned Counsel for the applicant has taken me through the F.I.R., which shows that applicant fired a shot and the deceased ran away. One non-applicant Chhote caught hold of him and fell on the ground and then Sanjay fired the shot on the deceased who died on spot.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the complainant submitted that there can be no parity on the ground of juvenile or on the ground of firing because the date of births in the case of non-applicant Sanjay was 15.10.1987 and the report of the Chief Medical Officer shows more than 18 years but in the case of the present applicant the Chief Medical Officer has reported his age between 19 to 20 years.

(3.) The learned Sessions Judge has given much importance on the word "between" and distinguished from the word "about", holding that no latitude of two years can be given. This interpretation is absolutely incorrect. Even if only one number of year of age has been given by the doctor, in all cases it is only an opinion which can vary two years either way. Thus this argument of the learned Counsel for the complainant has got no force.