BALLU @ BALRAM Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS criminal revision under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred being aggrieved by the order dated 1 -6 -2007 passed by Special Judge, Damoh in S.T. No. 83/2006, whereby the application filed by applicant for treating him juvenile has been rejected.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that the applicant is facing trial for the offences under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and under Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. In this case, the applicant filed an application on 27 -1 -2007 on the ground that on the date of incident he was below 18 years of age, therefore, he be treated juvenile. The reply was filed by the prosecution mainly contending that the objection ought to have been taken at the earliest opportunity available and by passage of time he has attained the majority. The Trial Court directed to hold the inquiry and after recording of the evidence and hearing the parties came to the conclusion that on the date of incident the age of the applicant was 17 years 8 months and 26 days but held that as the applicant has crossed the age of 18 years when an application was filed and the offence was also under Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 the application was rejected. Being aggrieved by that order the instant revision has been filed on the grounds mentioned in the memo of revision.

(3.) ON the contrary, Shri Vikram Singh, learned Panel Lawyer appearing on behalf of respondent/State supported the impugned order mainly contending that applicant has attained majority during the pendency of the case, hence his trial by Sessions Court is justified.