SOHAN BEDIA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 18.8.2012 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh, in Criminal Appeal No. 99 of 2012, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order dated 24.7.2012 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh, in G.R. No. 1663 of 2012 arising out of Ramgarh P.S. Case No. 138 of 2012, rejecting the application filed by the accused petitioner to declare him a juvenile, was dismissed by the learned Appellate Court below.

(2.) The petitioner has been made accused in Ramgarh P.S. Case No. 138 of 2012 corresponding to G.R. No. 1663 of 2012 for the offence under Section 395 of I.P.C. The petitioner filed his application before the Court below stating that he was a juvenile and accordingly, the Court of C.J.M. made an inquiry into the claim of the petitioner. It appears from the order dated 24.7.2012 passed by the learned C.J.M. that during inquiry the petitioner had produced his School Leaving Certificate wherein his date of birth was mentioned as 4.1.1995 and some witnesses were examined. The impugned order shows that for the reasons recorded in the order, the Court below did not place reliance upon the School Leaving Certificate issued in favour of the petitioner. The reasons recorded by the learned C.J.M. for not placing reliance on the School Leaving Certificate are valid and cogent reasons.

(3.) It appears from the impugned order that thereafter Medical Board was constituted for ascertaining the age of the petitioner and the Medical Board submitted its report in the Court below on 21.7.2012, wherein the Medical Board had opined that the age of the petitioner was about 18 years as on 20.7.2012. The Court below however stated that at the time of the remand, the age of the petitioner was assessed to be 20 years and accordingly, has rejected the application of the petitioner for declaring him a juvenile. The appeal filed against the said order was also dismissed by the Appellate Court below.