AKRAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners have submitted instant misc. petition impugning the order dated August 2, 1997 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Sikar whereby the application of the petitioners purported to have been filed under Section 32 of the Juvenile Justice Act. 1986 (for short the Act), questioning the jurisdiction of the Court was dismissed and it was held that the petitioner were more than 16 years of age on the date of incident.

(2.) BRIEF resume of the facts is that the petitioners are facing the trial in sessions case No. 16/1996 under Sections 147, 148, 307, 326, 323 and 341 IPC. in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sikar. The petitioners moved an application before the said Court with a request that proceedings may be dropped against them on the ground that on the alleged date of incident i.e., on September 14, 1994 they were less than 16 years of age. The date of birth of the petitioner Akram was January 7, 1980 whereas petitioner Lakhu @ Aklakh was born on December 9, 1978. Learned Additional Sessions Judge initiated inquiry and recorded the statements of Jishan Ali (AW. 1), Noor Mohd. (AW. 2), Dr. Shyam Sunder (AW. 3) and Dr. Yudhvar Singh (AW. 4). Transfer certificate and birth certificate respectively issued by the Head Master Naveen Vidhya Niketan, Sikar and Municipality Fatehpur as well as medical certificate in respect of the age of the petitioners were considered and after discussing the evidence the learned Court below dismissed the application of the petitioners and held that the petitioners were above sixteen years of age on the date of incident.

(3.) MR . Anoop Dhand, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner placed reliance on Narsingh v. State of Rajasthan (Cr. L.R. (Raj.) 1997 page 815 Jeetmohan Lohar v. State 1997 Cr. L.J 2842, Umesh Chandra v. State of Rajasthan : [1982]3SCR583 and Balasaheb v. The State of Maharashtra 1994 Cr. L.J. 3044.