GUFRAN Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) B. K. Rathi, J. This revision has been preferred under Section 397, Cr P. C. against the order dated 1-9-98 passed by the Vlth Additional Sessions Judge, Muzaffarnagar in Session Trial No. 427 of 1996 under Section302/34, I. P. C.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to this revision are that the applicant and other persons are being prosecuted under Section 302/34, I. P. C. THE applicant moved an ap plication 34-Kha alleging that he is a juvenile, being below 16 years of age and therefore, his matter may be separated and referred to the Juvenile Judge. That ap plication was rejyned by the impugned order.

(3.) AS against this, the complainant filed an affidavit that the applicant was not a juvenile. The applicant was also sum moned by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and was present before him. After looking at him the Presiding Officer was of the opinion that he was above 16 years of age on the date of incident. In the light of this evidence, the report of the C. M. O. was not accepted. The report of the C. M. O. is based on physical and radiological tests and there may be a mistake of two years on either side and is only an opinion evidence. On the face of other evidence available it was rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge.