IMRAN AU Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition of revision has been filed under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr. P.C., read with Section 482 of Cr. P.C. against the order dated 19-7-1996 of Sessions Judge, Bhopal in Criminal Appeal No. 110/96, whereby the prayer of the petitioner that he should be held to be below 16 years of age and thus a Juvenile, as defined in the Juvenile Justice Act 1986; has been rejected.

(2.) The facts leading to the present revision in brief are that police Jahangirabad arrested the accused/petitioner on 8-5-1996, in connection with an offence u/s 302 IPC, registered as Crime No. 377/96. It appears that bail application by the petitioner was filed on 14-5-1996 before Principal Magistrate Juvenile Court, Bhopal who ordered that hearing of the petition be deferred till medical examination of the petitioner regarding the assessment of age, is completed. Dr. C.S. Jam. Medical Officer, examined the petitioner and submitted a report dated 30-6-1996, which indicated that the age of petitioner is 16-1/2 years at the time of examination. Thereafter the parents of the accused/petitioner filed an affidavit making an averment that the petitioners age is 15 years 6 months and his age at the time of admission in school was recorded on the higher side, in order to secure admission. It has further been averred by the learned counsel of accused/petitioner that the Juvenile Court without conducting necessary enquiry, u/s 32 of the Juvenile Justice Act has recorded a finding that the accused/petitioner was more than 16 years of age. Criminal Appeal No. 110/96, was preferred against the said order before the Sessions Judge. Bhopal, who by judgment dated 19-7-1996, held that there does not appear to be any illegality or irregularity in the order of the trial Court. He accordingly dismissed the appeal. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the present revision has been filed.

(3.) It has mainly been urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the report of Dr. C.S. Jam indicates that the petitioner was 16-1/2 years plus or minus 6 months. Therefore, it should have been held that on the date of incident, the petitioner was less than 16 years of age, as the margin in assessment should have been construed in favour of the petitioner Moreover, it has been urged that judicial notice should have been taken that margin in assessment of age by radiological examination is 2 years on either side. In this connection reliance has been placed on the Naunidh v. State of U.P.