NARESH KUMAR DIXIT Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Advocate.

(2.) On 20.10.2010, when the trial was in progress, the revisionist made an application before the trial court claiming himself to be a juvenile and prayed that his case be sent to the Juvenile Justice Board for being dealt with in accordance with the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act. He gave his date of birth as 12.6.1883 and going by this date, he was below 18 years of age at the time of occurrence i.e. 6.9.1999. Unfortunately for the revisionist, however, the trial court, after holding inquiry into the age of the revisionist, rejected his claim of juvenility observing that the documents supplied by him were not reliable. This order was challenged by the revisionist by filing a revision application before this court, being criminal revision No.301 of 2013. This revision petition came to be decided on 25.11.2014, whereby this court, while dismissing the revision application, permitted the revisionist to adduce further evidence before the trial court. Pursuant to that order, the revisionist filed some other documents before the trial court, in which his date of birth was shown as 12.6.1983. He also examined a witness to prove the documents. However, the trial court, again, held that the documents were not reliable and observed that the revisionist was not a juvenile on the date of occurrence. Interestingly, this conclusion was arrived at by the trial court, inter alia, on the basis of the physical appearance of the revisionist.

(3.) Aggrieved by this order passed by the trial court, the revisionist again approached this court by filing a revision application being criminal revision No.402 of 2015. The revision application was decided by an order dated 22.4.2016. This court, while allowing the revision application, set aside the order passed by the trial court (whereby the trial court had rejected the claim of the juvenility of the revisionist) and directed the trial court to consider the claim of juvenility of the revisionist again, in view of the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act and the case-law on the subject.