ABHAY KUMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision application has been preferred for setting aside the order dtd. 3/8/2021 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge-I, Gopalganj in Cr. Appeal No. 20 of 2021. By the impugned judgment, learned Appellate Court has been pleased to set aside the order dtd. 14/6/2021 passed by learned Juvenile Justice Board, Gopalganj (hereinafter referred to as the 'Board') in J.J.B. Case No. 10 of 2021 arising out of Gopalganj P.S. Case No. 139 of 2020 registered for the offences under Sec. 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code by which the Board had declared the Accused No. 1-O.P. No.2 an adult on the basis of assessment of age by the Medical Board headed by the Civil Surgeon, Saran at Chapra. Brief Facts of the Case.

(2.) The opposite party no. 2 in the present application is an accused in Gopalganj P.S. Case No. 139 of 2020 registered under Sec. 302/34 IPC. According to the informant-petitioner, opposite party no. 2 had attacked the son of the informant by a knife when the victim was on his way back home from an invitation near Sati Sthan, Kothwaliya Ward No. 7. The victim was taken to the Gopalganj Sadar Hospital for treatment but when the informant was returning back along with his son to purchase medicines, this opposite party no. 2 along with three and four unknown people attacked his son again with knife with an intention to murder him. In the said occurrence, son of the informant was killed.

(3.) The opposite party no. 2 preferred an application under the provision of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 2015') and claimed that on the alleged date of occurrence, he was a juvenile. The opposite party no. 2 presented a date of birth certificate showing him a minor on the date of occurrence but the Board could not determine as to from which school the O.P. No. 2 had completed his education. By the order of the Board, a Medical Board was constituted to determine the age of the O.P. No. 2. It is stated that the Medical Board in its first meeting observed physical attributes of the O.P. No. 2 and advised him to go for an X-ray. In its second meeting held on 30/4/2021, the Medical Board acting on the basis of medical reports and after considering radiological, physical and dental reports were of the view that the O.P. No. 2 was more than 20 years of age on the date of examination. The Board, therefore, declared that on the alleged date of occurrence, the O.P. No. 2 was aged about 19 years 01 month and 25 days.