VIJAY PRAKASH Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned APP for the State. Petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 24.5.2013 pass by Additional Sessions Judge, XIV, Patna in Sessions Trial No. 494 of 2010 whereby and whereunder prayer of the petitioner with regard to declaration of his status as a juvenile has been turned down.

(2.) IT has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that learned lower court had adopted a novel method for the purpose of rejecting the prayer of the petitioner which is against the statutory provision of law and on account thereof is fit to be set aside. Further elucidating his submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that after all an enquiry has to be conducted in terms of Section 7A of the Act and for that purpose the documents as provided under Rule 12 has to be taken into consideration in its chronological way. However, learned lower court not only disbelieved the school leaving certificate on account of non -examination of Principal who also failed to produce relevant register, relied upon the assessment of the age made by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate at the time of remand which in no way has been recognized or accepted as a material for the purpose of ascertaining the age of delinquent. Not only this, the order impugned contains disclosure with regard to medical examination of the petitioner which on the date 9.8.2012 had estimated the age as 22 years. The date of occurrence is of 1.12.2009 and deducting three years, the age was estimated is also found to be reduced to the extent of 19 years and giving privilege of an year in terms of Rule 12(4), the age of the petitioner itself becomes less than 18 years and on that very score, the learned lower court should have declared the petitioner as a juvenile.

(3.) WITH regard to other part of the order, learned APP fairly submitted that appreciation of the estimation of age by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate at the time of remand of the accused was not permissible in the eye of law. He further submitted that the medical report was before learned lower court and after deducting the age, the status of the petitioner is found to be that of juvenile.