KUMARI MANTHRA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 13.7.2005 passed by the Sessions Judge, Jaipur District, Jaipur whereby he upheld the order passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge(Sr. Div.) and Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaipur wherein he concluded that the accused petitioner Manthra is 18 years of age. Hence, she was major on the date of occurrence. Being aggrieved by the said impugned orders, the petitioner has filed this revision petition before us.

(2.) A bare persual of he impugned order dated 12.7.2005 clearly revels that according to medical jurist Dr. Bajrang Lal, Manthra's age is between 17 and 19 years. However, without giving any cogent reason the learned Magistrate has concluded that the petitioner is not less than 18 years of age According to Modi's Medical Jurisprudence the ossification test is not a precise test to pin point for the age of a person. The conclusion of the ossification test is off by plus or minus two years of age. THus, in the instant case, the petitioner could be anywhere between 17 to 19 years of age. It is a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that in case, there are two interpretations of same set of evidence. then the evidence in favour of the petitioner could be 17 or 19 years of age on the she was 17 years of age. Moreover the learned Magistrate has no where stated any cogent reason for concluding that she cannot be less than 18 years of age. Even if, one were to accept the contention that the petitioner is having 32 teeth, therefore, she would be deemed to be a major, such acceptance would be fraught with danger. For recent scientific studies reveal that women in India are physically developing at a faster rate than their actual age.

(3.) One certainly cannot lose sight of the fact that the Juvenile Justice Act was enacted in order to protect the juvenile from facing the rigorous punishment under the Indian Penal Code. In a catena of cases, Honourable Supreme Court has held that while determining the age of an offender, a hypertechnical view should not be taken. In fact, a liberal view should be taken in favour of the juvenile. It seems that the learned Magistrate has taken a hypertechnical view, which is obvious from the record. Hence, the learned Magistrate, had denied the benefit of Juvenile Justice Act to the petitioner.