SUJARAM @ SUJANMAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this revision, the petitioner seeks to challenge the order dated 30.5.2016 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Jalore in Cr.Case No.42/2016 in relation to the proceedings of F.I.R. 37/2016 registered at the P.S. Nosra whereby, the application filed on behalf of the petitioner for being declared as a juvenile was rejected.

(2.) The petitioner is facing trial before the learned Sessions Judge for the offences under Sections 323, 341, 376 and 511 I.P.C. and Section 7/8 of POCSO Act. The incident of attempted sexual assault on Sushri 'G', daughter of the complainant by the petitioner Sujaram @ Sujanmal allegedly took place on 26.3.2016.

(3.) The F.I.R. was lodged by respondent Smt.Hanja Devi mother of the girl on the very same day i.e. 26.2016. After the case was committed, the petitioner submitted an application before the learned Sessions Judge, Jalore claiming that he was a juvenile on the day of the occurrence with his date of birth being 7.7.1999 as entered in the Adarsh Govt. Sr. School, Baori, Jalore. A copy of the scholar register of the said school was also presented alongwith the application. The petitioner's father Shri Hadman Ram supported the application by an affidavit. The trial court conducted an inquiry into the averments made by the petitioner in his application. The Headmaster Kailash Chandra Joshi, who appeared in the court in connection with the inquiry, stated that no student by the name of Sujaram S/o Hadmana Ram had ever studied in the school but a boy named Sujanmal Meena S/o Hadman Ram resident of Baori had been admitted in the school and the entry of his admission was made at Sr.No.1664 of the scholar register Article- The student was admitted in the school on 15.7.2008 and his name was struck off because of prolonged absence. Adverting to the difference in names, the trial court proceeded to hold that the entry in the scholar register was not that of the petitioner's admission and rejected the application submitted by him for being declared as a juvenile vide order dated 30.5.2016 which is challenged in the instant revision.