CHHAIBAJ Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Araf Khan, learned counsel for the revisionist; learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record. The present criminal revision has been filed for setting aside the orders dtd. 31/3/2022 and 20/10/2021 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge, POCSO Act, Court no.1 Aligarh, respectively, in Case Crime No. 238 of 2021, under Ss. 147, 148, 149, 302 I.P.C, Police Station Kwarsi, District Aligarh.

(2.) Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that courts below have committed patent illegal error in determination of the age of the revisionist. He has further submitted that the age of the revisionist was determined in ossification test report as about 19 years at the time of occurrence and given margin of two years on lower side, the age of the revisionist could have been considered as about 17 years. He has relied upon the judgments of Apex Court in the case of Darga Ram @ Gunga vs State Of Rajasthan, 2015(2) SCC 775 and Vinod Katara Vs. State pf U.P., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 757.

(3.) Learned AGA appearing on behalf of State, respondent no.1, has submitted that courts below have passed the correct orders and they do not require any interference. After hearing rival contentions this Court finds that before further proceeding a look at Sec. 94 (2) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2015, is required:-