CHANDRA BHAL 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.) INSTANT criminal revision has been preferred by the revisionist against the order dated 04.12.2013 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 4, Lakhimpur Kheri in Criminal Misc. Case No. 83 of 2013, Peesu Shukla @ Amrendra Kumar Shukla Vs. State whereby the application of the present revisionist who happens to be the complainant of this case for getting the medical examination of Peesu Shukla @ Amrendra Kumar Shukla for the purpose of determination of his age was turned down.

(3.) BRIEF facts necessary for the purpose of instant revision are that Peesu Shukla was facing trial for the offence under Section 323, 452, 376 (g) IPC and 3/4 Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012, P.S. Mitauli, District Lakhimpur Kheri. Charge sheet was filed against him and the session trial was pending. It is pertinent to mention here that in the first information report the accused was named as Peesu Shukla son of Surendra Kumar. During course of trial, his bail application was rejected, thereafter, an application was moved on behalf of opposite party no. 2 claiming himself to be juvenile. It was supported by High School certificate. In the said certificate date of birth of Amrendra Kumar Shukla was mentioned as 20.08.1997. In that application he mentioned his name as Peesu Shukla @ Amrendra Kumar Shukla. The present revisionist, who happens to be the complainant of the case, filed his objections, and submitted that in the family register, date of birth of Peesu Shukla was recorded as 02.01.1993 and the said family register is a public document. Since there was difference in date of birth mentioned in the family register and High School certificate, therefore, the present revisionist moved an application for medical examination of Peesu Shukla but the said application was rejected because the High School certificate was in existence and as per Rule 12 the medical examination can be directed only in absence of three documentary evidences mentioned in Rule 12 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules (hereinafter referred as 'Rules').