NIRANJAN KUMAR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 and Mrs. indu Bala Pandey, learned A.P.P. for the State.

(2.) This application is directed against the order dated 8.7.2009 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-ll, Vaishali at Hajipur in Sessions Trial No. 137/2002 by which the Court had rejected the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner for declaring him to be a juvenile and the order dated 3.8.2009 is also an order rejecting the same on the ground that already an order has been passed by the Court on 8.7.2009.

(3.) The controversy involved in the present case is with regard to whether the petitioner is the same person in whose name the Matriculation certificate has been filed in the Court below, that is, whether Pankaj Kumar and Niranjan Kumar are the same person with two names being alias of each other. This controversy has arisen due to the fact that the petitioner by his name Pankaj Kumar was made accused in Bidupur (Vaishali) P.S. Case No. 281 of 2001 dated 31.10.2001 registered under Sections 302/34 of.the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The petitioner claims that his official name is Niranjan Kumar and his alias name is Pankaj Kumar and therefore, he produced copy of the Matriculation certificate issued by the Bihar School Examination Board bearing no. 090627 dated 31.12.1998 in which the examinee's name is Niranjan Kumar S/o Shyam Deo Prasad and his date of birth is mentioned as 1.2.1984. The father of the petitioner also is Shyam Deo Prasad. It appears that in view of this controversy, certificate no. 929 dated 7.2.2007 was obtained from the Anchal Adhikari, Bhagwanpur (Vaishali) being the residential certificate in which the name is written as Niranjan Kumar @ Pankaj Kumar S/o Shyam Deo Prasad. There is no controversy with regard to the parentage and the place of residence of the two, that is, Niranjan Kumar and Pankaj Kumar. After obtaining the said residential certificate an application was filed before the Court concerned for declaring the petitioner to be a Juvenile, since if the date of birth as mentioned in the Matriculation certificate was taken into account then the petitioner was 17 years 8 months and 29 days old on the date of occurrence which is 30.10.2001.