SAKIR MEWATI Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition under Section 53 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2000, read with Sections 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, has been preferred against an order dated 16th March 2011 in Criminal Case No. 25/2011 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge Guna, holding after conducting an inquiry that the Petitioners are not juveniles.

(2.) The facts necessary for the disposal of this petition are that on 6th December 2011 at Town of Raghogarh, District Guna, one Deepak Soni, s/o Babulal Soni was reported to be missing from his house. Said report was recorded in Rojnamcha of the police Station. During search on 8/12/10, the dead body of Deepak Soni in a gunny beg was found under beneath of culvert of ITI at Raghogarh. Accordingly, Marg report was registered. During inquiry, it appeared that the accused including Petitioners committed murder of missing Deepak Soni and caused the evidence of offence to be disappeared with an intention to suppress the offender from legal punishment. An FIR was lodged and after investigation the charge-sheet was filed before the criminal court. After committal, the sessions trial was commenced before the trial court at Guna. During trial, the Petitioners filed the application stating that on the date of incident, i.e., 6th December 2010, they were below 18 years of age, hence they being juveniles it was requested that their case be referred to the Juvenile Justice Court for holding an inquiry determination of the question regarding their age and trial before the board. The trial Court on the basis of the evidence of the Petitioners filed with the application and the evidence collected during investigation, concluded that the Petitioners were not juvenile. Hence, this revision.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the Petitioners referred to the provisions of Section 7 of the said Act as well as the provisions of Section 49 thereof. He submitted that the finding of the learned Additional Sessions Judge ought to be regarded only as an opinion and should be on the same footing as an opinion of a Magistrate under Section 7. Therefore, it was incumbent upon the Juvenile Justice Board to hold a full-fledged enquiry under Section 49 and record a definite finding with regard to the age of the accused. According to him, the order passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge is in the nature of a mere opinion. He also referred to the school certificate and the mark sheets to contend that the Petitioners were belong 18 years of age, but the trial court relied on the ossification test conducted during investigation which was not conclusive proof of age. Hence the impugned order was patently illegal,arbitrary and deserves to be set aside.