KAMALJEET Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) The present revision petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner challenging the order dated 23.4.2011 passed by the learned Special Additional Sessions Judge (W.A.), Sri Ganganagar in Cri. Misc. Case No. 26/2010 pertaining to Sessions Case No. 15/2008 whereby the application filed by the petitioner for being treated as juvenile has been rejected.

(3.) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that a F.I.R. was registered against the petitioner along with other co-accused persons for offences under Sections 376, 366, 363, 420, 342, 120B and 382 I.P.C. being F.I.R. No. 22/2008 registered at Women Police Station, District Sri Ganganagar. On the conclusion of the investigation, the police proceeded to file a charge-sheet against the petitioner and other accused persons for the aforesaid offences. The case was committed to the Court of learned Special Additional Sessions Judge (W.A.), Sri Ganganagar where an application was filed on behalf of the petitioner for being treated him as a juvenile. The learned Special Additional Sessions Judge initiated an enquiry and on the conclusion of the enquiry, the learned Special Additional Sessions Judge came to a finding that the school record produced on behalf of the petitioner was as a matter of fact created subsequently and that the school record produced at the inquiry did not correspond to the petitioner. It was held that there were two different persons Kamaljeet Singh and Kanwaljeet Singh whilst the petitioner is Kamaljeet Singh, the entries in the school record are of Kanwaljeet Singh and taking advantage of the fact that the petitioner's mother was an employee in the school, the school entry In the name of Kanwaljeet Singh has been tried to be projected to be that of the petitioner and thus, whilst dismissing the petitioner's application for being treated as juvenile, the petitioner was directed to be tried as a regular offender by the impugned order dated 23.4.2011. Hence, being aggrieved by the order dated 23.4.2011, the present revision petition has been preferred.