BIR BAHADUR CHOUDHARY Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the Opposite Parties.

(2.) LITERATURE and philosophy appear more effective while disposing of this case. Science effecting ability to sex is one thing and that is prohibited is another thing. In India, marriage was being solemnized of minors, for that preventive measure was taken to not marry a girl before 18 and a boy before 21 but below 18 and 21 they will not be able to have sex or that is not developed is quite different thing. Without having knowledge in depth, Judicial Officer should avoid to make comments on that side. Admittedly, the victim and the petitioner are minors. Both indulged in sexual act. Liability upon the petitioner is that he took the girl with him to different places and indulged in sex with her but there appeared no abnormality if nature was prohibiting for sex. Once, a lady specifically a minor girl is assaulted sexually, there is every kind of humiliation and observation of the Additional Sessions Judge is correct to that extent. But he never cared treatment which should be given to a juvenile, who is able to have sex. Law is also prohibiting him but not nature.

(3.) ACCORDINGLY , the revision application is allowed and order dated 10.02.2010 passed by the Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad in Cr. Appeal NO. 52 of 2009/02 of 2010 and the order dated 19.11.2009 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Aurangabad in G.R. No. 500 of 2009, Tr. No. 418 of 2009 arising out of Daudnagar P.S. Case No. 141 of 2009 are hereby set aside.