UMESH DUKHAN MANDAL Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE. RULE is made returnable forthwith. The learned APP waives service. By consent, matter taken up for hearing.

(2.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents.

(3.) IN view of the above dispute about the actual age of the petitioner and after perusal of the record before the Trial Court we had passed an order on29. 03. 2004 whereby we had directed that the petitioner be examined by a Radiologist at a Government Hospital at Pune and to submit his detailed report as to the age of the petitioner as on the date of examination. IN pursuance of the aforesaid order, the Professor and Head of the Department of Radiology, B. J. Medical College, Sasoon General Hospital, Pune being a Government Hospital has sent a report with regard to the age of the petitioner as on 05. 04. 2004 when he was physically examined. We have perused the said report. The said report clearly indicates that on the clinical and radiological examination of the petitioner, the age of the petitioner as on 05. 04. 2004 to be 18 years but less than 20 years which includes marginal error of six months of either side. If that be so, the age of the petitioner on the relevant date i. e.10.04. 1999 would have been 15 years, at the most, i. e. taking the higher age as per the above range.