GYAN RANJAN PATTNAYAK Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order dated 12.11.2002 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Berhampur in S.C. 54/2002 (Sessions Case No. 328 of 2002) (G.D.C.) rejecting the petition filed by the petitioner for sending the case record to the Juvenile Court, Berhampur for trial on the ground that the petitioner is a juvenile is under challenge in this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

(2.) IT was contended before the learned Sessions Judge that the petitioner was aged about 16 years 8 months and 2 days on the alleged date of offence and, therefore, a juvenile and should be tried by the Juvenile Court. The learned Sessions Judge did not accept the age as mentioned in the petition and looking at the physique of the petitioner assessed his age at more than 18 years on the date of occurrence and rejected the petition. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that if the learned Sessions Judge had any doubt about the age of the petitioner, he should have directed for an inquiry as contemplated in the statute. - -

(3.) THE Apex Court again in the case of Rajendra Chandra v. State of Chhattisgarh and Anr. reported in A.I.R. 2002 S.C. 748 observed that when the accused claimed himself to be a juvenile, onus lies upon him to prove that he was a juvenile. Oral and documentary evidence adduced by him not sufficient to discharge the said onus. If on consideration of such materials, two views are possible, the Court should lean in favour of the accused. In the said case accused was found to be less than 16 years of age on the date of offence and the Apex Court held that the accused is a juvenile.