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 Section302/201 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 has 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 petitioner about 20-21 years.

(3.) ADVANCING his argument Mr. Kashyap further submitted that the Head master in charge of the concerned school, where the petitioner last read, was produced and examined as E.W. 1 who proved the school leaving certificate and the admission register wherein the date of birth was recorded as 15.8.1993 as such the petitioner was below 18 years on the alleged date of occurrence on 4.5.2006 E.W.3 also being the member of the Medical Board, Daltonganj, testified that the age of the petitioner was determined between 19-20 years on 14.5.2009 by the Medical Board, therefore, he was below 18 years as on3/4.5.2006 i.e. the alleged date of occurrence.