VIJAI PRATAP SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.

(2.) THE instant criminal revision has been preferred against the order dated 23.11.2006 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 4, Lucknow whereby the application of the revisionist claiming himself to be juvenile in conflict with law was rejected in Sessions Trial No. 83 of 1997 (State Vs. Shaila Singh and others).

(3.) IN brief the facts of the instant case are that the revisionist was facing trial for the offence under Sections 498 -A and 304 -B I.P.C. and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Sahadatganj, district Lucknow. The revisionist happens to be husband of the deceased. The occurrence of this case is alleged to have taken place on 31.8.1987. During course of trial, an application was moved on behalf of the revisionist claiming himself to be a juvenile in conflict with law. There was no documentary evidence regarding his age. Since he claimed to be a juvenile, therefore, he was referred for medical examination. Concerned C.M.O., vide his report dated 25.7.2006, reported that his age was 37 years. On the basis of this material, the trial court has held that at the time of the incident, he was above 18 years of age accordingly, rejected the application.