DEEPAK KUMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Revision has been preferred by the Petitioner Deepak Kumar Singh under Section 53 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act. 2000 against the judgment dated 23.11.2009 passed by Sri. G.K. Verma, Sessions Judge, Palamau at Daltonganj in Cr. Appeal No. 62 of 2009 by which the prayer of the Petitioner for declaring him juvenile, rejected by the Juvenile Justice Board, Palamau at Daltonganj in connection with Sadar (Town) P.S. Case No. 159 of 2006 corresponding to G.R. No. 629 of 2006 was affirmed and the appeal was dismissed. The Petitioner was in custody for the alleged offence under Sections 302/ 201 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) The prosecution story in short was that the village chowkidar in his statement before the police on 4.5.2006 narrated that a dead body of an unknown person was found thrown by putting inside a gunny bag. The neck and limbs of the deceased was tightly tied with nylon ropes to which Sadar (Town) P.S. Case No. 159 of 2006 was registered for the alleged offence under Sections 302/201 of the Indian Penal Code against unknown accused. During course of investigation the name of the deceased was transpired to be Santosh Agarwal who was earlier abducted by the culprits for ransom. The police got some clues about involvement of the Petitioner Deepak Kumar Singh in commission of the alleged offence and accordingly, he was arrested, and he confessed his guilt that he abducted the deceased in association with Mantoo Singh. He had given a detailed description as to how both of them hatched a plan to abduct Santosh Agarwal and they demanded ransom from his family for securing his release. From the very beginning the Petitioner had taken the plea of his juvenility before the CJM. In pursuance of such plea, the case record of the Petitioner was separated and it was referred to the Juvenile Justice Board, Ranchi for determination of his age. An enquiry was conducted under Section 49 of the said Act and the Board after considering all the materials collected during course of enquiry held that the Petitioner was not a juvenile at the relevant time and date of the alleged occurrence. During course of such enquiry the Petitioner was referred to the Civil Surgeon-cum- Chief Medical Officer, Ranchi for determination of his age and the Medical Board duly constituted determined the age of the Petitioner about 20-21 years.

(3.) The Petitioner then preferred Criminal Appeal No. 86 of 2007 under Section 52 of the said Act before the Sessions Judge, Palamau at Daltonganj which was allowed and the matter was remitted back again to the J.J. Board, Ranchi for re-determination of age of the Petitioner. In compliance thereof the J.J. Board, called for the relevant documents from the Civil-Surgeon-cum- Chief Medical Officer, Ranchi by which the age of the Petitioner was determined between 20 and 21 years. On receipt and upon consideration of the said report, the J.J. Board, Ranchi directed appearance of any member of the Medical Board with original documents regarding the assessment of the age of the Petitioner for its proof, but in the meantime an independent Juvenile Justice Board was constituted at Daltonganj, where the record of the Petitioner was transferred. The Juvenile Justice Board, Daltonganj thought it proper to get the age of the Petitioner determined by directing the Civil Surgeon, Palamau. Accordingly a Medical Board was constituted for the re-determination of the age of the Petitioner and the Board determined the age of the Petitioner about 19-20 years by the report dated 14.5.2009. During course of enquiry, one of the members of the Medical Board Dr. V.K. Singh was examined as E.W.3. The J.J. Board Daltonganj finally held the Petitioner not a Juvenile against which Cr. Appeal 62 of 2009 was preferred before the Sessions Judge, Palamau at Daltonganj under Section 52 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 wherein while deciding the appeal it was observed that the Juvenile Justice Board, Dalgonganj quite correctly assessed and determined the age of the Appellant on the basis of, and by detailed discussion and appreciation of medical opinion rendered by the Medical Boards both at Ranchi and Daltonganj, and rightly held that the Appellant was above 18 years of age on the alleged date of occurrence in the year 2006 and the appeal was dismissed.