LALIT KUMAR SHARMA Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Anurag Pathak, learned counsel for the revisionists, learned AGA for opposite party No.1 and Sri Sushil Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the opposite party No.2.

(2.) During the pendency of Sessions trial in Case Crime No. 55 of 2006, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302 IPC, Police Station Dakshin, District Firozabad, an application was made for declaring the accused-opposite party No.2 as juvenile.

(3.) In evidence, his date of birth was shown as 10.7.1990 in the Pariwar Register and therefore, the application was referred to the Juvenile Justice Board for determination of the age of the aforesaid accused. The incident was dated 22.02.2006 and the date of birth of the opposite party No.2 was stated to be 10.7.1990, which implies that his age at the time of the incident was 15 years 7 months 12 days. The transfer certificate issued by Janta Vidhyalay, Sakatpur, Kannauj was filed and Headmaster of the school was also examined.