LAWS(JHAR)-2015-5-5

BIMAL GORAI Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

Decided On May 06, 2015
Bimal Gorai Appellant
V/S
THE STATE OF JHARKHAND Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of this revision application, the petitioner Bimal Gorai takes exception to the order dated 19.02.2015 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge -V, Dhanbad in Sessions Trial No. 463 of 2012 whereby and whereunder the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 7(A) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) read with Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) for declaring him Juvenile, has been rejected.

(2.) IT appears from the record that on the basis of a written report of the informant (14 years old girl), the First Information Report was lodged on 14.06.2012 at 10.00 p.m. on the allegation that while the informant was playing outside her house alongwith his younger brother, the accused, who is the present petitioner, asked her to bring water in "Lota" and when the informant brought water, the accused forcibly took her inside his room and closed the door and committed rape upon her and when her brother reached, alarmed for help and called her mother, the accused did not open the door and after some time he threw the victim out of the room and again closed the room and when the father of the informant came back, the matter was reported to the police station.

(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the petitioner seriously contended that the court below while passing the order ignored the Provisions of Act and Rules as envisaged in Section 7(A) of the Act and Rule 12 of the Rules, 2007. It was also submitted that the sub -Rule (3)(b) of Rule 12 clearly stipulates that in absence of any certificate the court will direct the assessment of age by duly constituted Medical Board but the court below on mere conjecture and surmises and relying upon assessment of age of the petitioner at the time of remand, rejected his prayer. Learned counsel in support of his contention has relied on Shah Nawaz v. State of U.P. : (2011) 13 SCC 751 and Vicky Sao Vs. State of Jharkhand: : 2008(3) JLJR 203.