RAJU MITRA Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Judgement of the Court was as follows : This matter has appeared in the list on mentioning of Mr. Banerjee, the learned Advocate for the petitioner.

(2.) Mr. Banerjee, learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is an accused in connection with Jalpaiguri Kotwali P. S. Case No. 116 of 1990 dated 22.03.1990 under Sections 493/376 of the I.P.C. When the accused-petitioner was brought under arrest, a plea was raised that he was a juvenile and did not complete the age of 18-years on the date of incident and considering that bail was granted to him. Thereafter, the ossification test was done when he was produced but the learned Magistrate did not consider that he was a juvenile. Subsequently, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions and it was transferred to the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 1 st Court, Jalpaiguri and at the stage of 227/228 of Cr.P.C., such plea was not raised nor the learned Court looked into the lower Court records to ascertain whether the petitioner was a juvenile of not. After the trial commenced, the petitioner raised the plea that he was a juvenile and the learned Additional Sessions Judge by his order dated 1.8.2002 rejected the said prayer and also observed that there cannot be any scope for further enquiry to determine the age of the accused. According to Mr. Banerjee, the observation made by the learned Additional Sessions Judge was erroneous and enquiry is needed to ascertain the age of the accused on the date of incident.

(3.) Mr. Subhasish Pachhal, learned Advocate for the State submits that when a plea was raised by the accused petitioner, the learned Judge ought to have made an enquiry because the school certificate does not always reveal the correct age. The school certificate has evidentiary value no doubt, but cannot be regarded as conclusive proof of age.