JUGENDRA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) VINOD Prasad, J. Heard learned Counsel for the revisionist and the learned A. G. A.

(2.) THE revisionist is aggrieved by an order dated 20-11-2006 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 11, Bareilly in S. S. T. No. 313 of 2006, State v. Jugendra Singh and Ors. By the aforesaid order the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 11, Bareilly has rejected the prayer of the revisionist to be declared juvenile.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the revisionist relied upon the judgment reported in 2003 (1) JIC 304 (All) : 2003 (46) ACC 382, Dal Chand (Juvenile) v. State of U. P. In the aforesaid case it has been held by this Court that school certificate may be considered to be an important piece of evidence. In the aforesaid case the Principal of the school was examined and it was on the basis of such a statement of Principal as well as of the mother that the age was determined in that case. The facts of that case are entirely distinguishable from the case of the present revisionist as he had failed to produce any cogent and reliable evidence for acceptance of his contentions. LEARNED Counsel for the revisionist also relied upon the judgment reported in 2002 (1) JIC 609 (SC) : AIR 2002 SC 748, Rajinder Chandra v. State of Chhattishgarh and Anr. The aforesaid judgment is of no help to the case of the revisionist. Juvenile Justice Act is meant for juvenile offenders. Needless to say that Juvenile Justice Act cannot be allowed to be wielded as a weapon by an accused who is not a juvenile to reap the benefit specially in serious cases as the present one under Section 302 I. P. C. Further in that case there was no distinction between School leaving certificate and the rodiologically determined age vide paragraph 6 of the aforesaid judgment. LEARNED Counsel for the revisionist also cited 2003 (2) JIC 176 (All) : 2003 (46) ACC 709, Jagdish @ Kallu v. State of U. P. and Ors. In the aforesaid judgment the Apex Court has taken a view that if two views are possible then view favourable to the accused should be preferred. In the present case two views were not possible as the documentary evidence led before the trial Court was wholly insufficient and was a dicey piece of evidence. The radiologically determined age of 20 years was scientifically determined age and therefore, was rightly accepted by the trial Court. The trial Court committed no error in relying upon the radiologically determined age.