YUSUF ALI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 20.11.2010, passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hanumangarh, whereby the learned Magistrate had rejected the application filed by the petitioner for declaring him to be a juvenile under the provisions of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 ('the Act', for short). The petitioner is equally aggrieved by the order dated 17.1.2011, passed by the Session Judge, Hanumangarh, whereby the learned Judge has rejected the appeal filed by the petitioner and has upheld the order dated 20.11.2010.

(2.) Briefly the facts of the case are that petitioner was named as an accused in F.I.R. No. 47/2010 for offences under Sections 307, 323, 341, 504 and 34, I.P.C. However, with the death of the injured, the offence under Sec. 302 I.P.C. was added later on. Since the petitioner claimed to be fifteen years old on the date of the occurrence, he filed an application before the learned Magistrate for declaring him to be a juvenile under the Act. In order to buttress his case, the petitioner examined five witnesses and submitted few documents. On the other hand, the prosecution examined two witnesses and also submitted few documents. After going through the oral and documentary evidence, vide order dated 20.11.2010, the learned Magistrate dismissed the petitioner's application. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned Judge. However, vide order dated 17.1.2001, the learned Judge also dismissed the appeal. Hence, this petition before this Court.

(3.) Mr. Pankaj Sharma, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has vehemently contended that a bare perusal of the testimonies of the petitioner's parents would reveal that they were not in a position to state the petitioner's correct date of birth. Therefore, the learned trial Court should have relied upon the medical evidence. However, while relying on the medical evidence, it should have remembered that the medical evidence gives an approximate age of a person. The approximation is subjected to a variation of two years. According to the Medical Board, the petitioner was between the age of nineteen to twenty years. Therefore, his age would vary anywhere from seventeen to twenty-two years. Relying on the case of Rajender Chandra Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Anr., (2002) 2 SCC 287 the learned counsel has contended that in a border line case, the Court should not be hyper-technical and should give the benefit of doubt to the offender. Thus, both the learned trial Court, and the learned appellate Court should have taken the petitioner to be a minor, instead of being major on the date of occurrence.