LAWS(MPH)-2018-2-463

RIZWAN KHAN Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Decided On February 08, 2018
Rizwan Khan Appellant
V/S
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner/complainant has challenged the order dated 05.06.2017 passed by learned 6th ASJ, Bhopal in ST No.762/2016 wherein the date of birth of the respondent No.2/accused has been held as 11.06.1998 and therefore, he has been declared as juvenile in conflict with law.

(2.) The respondent No.2 is facing trial for offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC. The petitioner is the father of the deceased Salman. The respondent No.2 claims himself to be a juvenile. Learned trial Court entered into enquiry of his juvenility. Original scholar registration (Exhibit A-3) was called from Babadi Primary School wherein "at serial number 133" the name of the respondent No.2 - Salman has been entered and his date of birth has been entered as "01.06.1998". However, Exhbit A-1 copy of mark-sheet of class 1; Exhibit A-2 copy of mark-sheet of class 2; Exhibit A-5 copy marksheet of class 3; and Exhibit A-6 copy of mark-sheet of class 4 show his date of birth as 11.06.1998. Because of these differences, learned trial Court asked for a medical opinion. As the dates are differently mentioned, learned trial Court directed for examination by Medical Board. On the basis of the Medical Board report dated 16.05.2017 it is held that the respondent No.2 was aged about 15 to 17 years. Hence, the trial Court found that the respondent No.2 is below 16 years of age on the date of incident i.e. 09.06.2016. Therefore, it was decided to send the respondent No.2 to the Juvenile Justice Board for appropriate action.

(3.) The petitioner Rizwan Khan - father of the deceased has preferred this petition under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice Act read with Sections 397 and 401 of the Cr.P.C. on the ground that the documents of the school undisputedly show that the respondent No.2 was more than eighteen years on the date of offence. However, learned trial Court erred in holding him to be between 15-17 years of age and thereby sent him to Juvenile Justice Board. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.