KISHANLAL Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS criminal revision under Section 53 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 [for short "the Act of 2000"] has been filed against the order dated 13.10.2014 passed by Sessions Judge, Rajgarh (Biaora) in Criminal Appeal No.261/2014, whereby set -aside the order passed by Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Rajgarh (Biaora) in Criminal Case No.110/2014 on 27.08.2014.

(2.) Brief facts of this case are that on 07.05.2014 a Crime No.223/2014 was registered against the applicant for the offences punishable under Sections 376 and 342 of IPC. After investigation final report has been filed against the applicant for the aforesaid offences. The applicant moved an application that the applicant is juvenile on the date of offence, therefore, he be tried before the Juvenile Justice Board in accordance with the Act of 2000. The Board has after holding enquiry vide order dated 27.08.2014 held that on the date of offence the applicant was below 18 years of age and he was juvenile, therefore, he be dealt with as per the provisions of the Act of 2000. Against that order the prosecutrix has filed an appeal under Section 52 of the Act of 2000. Learned Sessions Judge by the impugned order dated 13.10.2014 allowed the appeal and directed the Board to send the applicant for medical examination in regard to his age and after receiving the medical opinion, proceed further. Being aggrieved with this order, the applicant has filed this revision.

(3.) Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the appellate Court has failed to consider the provisions envisaged under Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007. It is true that the applicant's father has failed to prove the date of birth of the applicant, however, from the school record the date of birth of the applicant was proved i.e. 10.08.1997 and no evidence was produced in rebuttal. Therefore, on this basis Board has gave an opinion that on the date of offence the applicant was aged 16 years 6 months and 20 days. There is no illegality in the finding but learned appellate Court has totally ignored this aspect of the matter and relied upon the voter list which cannot be considered for determining the age of the juvenile. Thus, the order passed by the appellate Court is not justifiable. Therefore, it be set -aside.