SADDAM ANSARI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 11.12.2013 passed by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner -III, Ranchi, in S.T. No. 39 of 2013, whereby the application filed by the accused petitioner claiming himself to be a juvenile, has been rejected by the trial Court below.

(2.) IT appears from the F.I.R., which was lodged on 25.08.2012 that there is allegation against the petitioner to have established physical relationship with the informant for the last six to seven months on the false pretext of marrying her.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order passed by the Court below is absolutely illegal, in as much as, according to the F.I.R., the offence had taken place about 6 to 7 months prior to the date of filing of the F.I.R., when the petitioner was certainly a juvenile. It is also pointed out that though in the F.I.R. there is allegation against the petitioner to have subjected the victim to sexual exploitation on several occasions during the said period, but the victim has been examined as P.W. -4, in the Court below, wherein in her examination -in -chief she has stated about only one such occurrence, though in her cross -examination she has stated about two such occurrences, but she has not disclosed the date of second such occurrence. Learned counsel accordingly, submitted that the benefit of this shall also go to the petitioner and this clearly shows that on the date of the alleged offence the petitioner was a juvenile. Learned counsel accordingly, submitted that the impugned order passed by the Court below which has found the petitioner not to be juvenile on the date of filing of the F.I.R., is absolutely illegal and the same cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.