RAMDAYAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition under Sec. 53 of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (in short, 'the Act') against the order dated 17th April, 2008 passed by the learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track), Hindauncity, Karauli by which the application filed by the petitioner under Sec. 49 of the Act in Criminal Case No. 90/2007 has been dismissed.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts for the disposal of this revision petition are that the petitioner is facing trial under Sections 376(2)(f), 366A and 342 IPC. During the course of trial, an application was moved by the petitioner claiming himself to be a juvenile as his date of birth is 1st May, 1991 and the incident took place on 15th Aug., 2007, therefore, the accused was below 18 years of age. The learned trial court conducted an inquiry in relation to the age of the accused petitioner. Three witnesses were produced on behalf of the petitioner and three documents were tendered in evidence. In rebuttal, one witness was examined by the respondent State and X-ray report was got exhibited. The learned trial court after hearing both the parties vide order dated 17th April, 2008 found that the petitioner was not a juvenile on the date of incident, therefore, his application was liable to be rejected and the same was rejected. Hence, this revision petition.

(3.) It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned trial court has not properly appreciated the evidence and by simply placing reliance on ossification test, rejected the application of the petitioner for treating him as a juvenile. It is further contended that as per the school certificate the date of birth of the petitioner is 1st May, 1991, therefore, as per the provisions of Sec. 2(k) of the Act, the petitioner is a juvenile and he is to be tried by the Juvenile Justice Court. It is contended that the finding recorded by the learned court below is perverse in nature, therefore, the order passed by the learned trial court requires to be set aside. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Rajinder Chandra Vs. State of Chhatisgarh and another, 2002(1) WLC (SC) Cri. 210 : (2002)2 SCC 287 and Raisul Vs. State of U.P., AIR 1977 SC 1822 .