LALU ANSARI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal revision is directed against the order impugned dated 11.5.2009 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, FTC No. III Dhanbad in S.T. No. 38 of 2009 arising out of Nirsha (Kalubathan) P.S. Case No. 188 of 2008 corresponding to G.R. No. 3063 of 2008 by which the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner claiming his juvenility was rejected.

(2.) The prosecution story in short was that the daughter of the informant namely Bano Bibi was found hanged to death in her matrimonial home and earlier there was allegation of demand of a motor cycle and also cash of Rs. 50,000/- as dowry The informant instituted a case against all the family members of the husband of the deceased including the petitioner, who was admittedly the younger brother of the husband for the alleged offence and the I.O after investigation submitted charge sheet under sections 304B/34 of the Indian Penal Code against them all. The petitioner took the plea of juvenility in the court of CJM, Dhanbad itself whereupon the Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Dhanbad was requested for constituting a Medical Board to examine the petitioner and to submit its report. But in the meantime, the case was committed to the court of sessions and finally the record was transferred to the court of Additional Sessions Judge, FTC No. III, Dhanbad where the petitioner again took plea of his juvenility and requested the Additional Sessions Judge, FTC No. III for producing him before the Medical Board for assessment of his age. When the learned Additional Sessions Judge came to learn that a report was already called for by the CJM Dhanbad, he again sent a requisition to the Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Dhanbad and pursuant to that, the petitioner was produced before the Medical Board for determination of his age. The Board submitted its report by determining the age of the petitioner Lalu Ansari S/O Sidique Aansari between 17 to 18 years relying upon his radiological examination. All the members of the Medical Board signed the report which was submitted in the court on 11.4.2009. The petitioner then took a plea that he was below 18 years of age and he should be declared juvenile but instead thereof, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, F.T.C. No. III rejected the plea of the petitioner on the following premises: