MANTU BHAGAT Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State as also learned counsel for the accused opposite parties No.2 and 3, who have been held to be juveniles by the learned Appellate Court below.

(2.) THE informant -petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 22.8.2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge -1, Pakur, in Cr. Appeal (Juvenile) No.21 of 2013 and Cr. Appeal (Juvenile) No.22 of 2013, whereby in the appeal filed by opposite parties No.2 and 3 against the order dated 3.5.2013 passed by the learned SDJM, Pakur, in G.R. No.571 of 2012, rejecting their claim of the juvenility, was allowed by the learned Appellate Court below, holding that they were juveniles on the date of occurrence.

(3.) LEARNED Appellate Court below has mainly relied upon the admission register of the school proved in course of enquiry by the juveniles and has held that on the date of occurrence, those petitioners were juveniles. However, it may be stated that the admission register showed that opposite party No.2 Nasim Ansari had taken admission in Class 4 whereas opposite party No.3 Shahjahan Ansari has taken admission in Class 2. Placing reliance on those documents, the order passed by learned SDJM, Pakur was set -aside by the learned Appellate Court below, holding that on the date of occurrence, both these petitioners were juveniles. It may be stated that learned SDJM, Pakur, in the order dated 3.5.2013 had held that none of the certificates produced by the juveniles were in accordance with Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules 2007 (herein after referred to as the "Rules"), and the prosecution side had proved the documents to show that the accused Nasim Ansari had obtained a Government contract by order dated 31.3.2012 issued by the Deputy Development Commissioner, Pakur, and the accused Shahjahan Ansari was a voter and in the voter list, his age was shown as 19 years as on 1.1.2013. The date of occurrence in the case being 6.7.2012, learned SDJM, Pakur, held that both these accused persons were not juveniles on the date of occurrence.