Hon'ble Shri Kant Tripathi - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the revisionist and learned AGA for the State.
(2.) THIS is a revision against the order dated 20.9.2008 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/ FT. C. No. Ist, Banda in misc. case No. 5/XII/08 arising out of S.T. No. 77 of 2002 (State v. Raju and others). It appears that the revisionist-Saket Kumar @ Bablu moved an application for declaring him as a juvenile. The learned Additional Sessions Judge registered the application as a misc. case and proceeded to hold an inquiry. During the inquiry witnesses Ram Baran Singh Chauhan (CW-1), the principal of Saraswati Gyan Mandir, Sitamau, District Mandsaur, M.P. and Ashok Kumar (CW-2) an Assistant Teacher in the Madhusudan Das Inter College, Jaspura, Banda were examined. For the determination of the revisionist's age, his medical examination was also done. The occurrence took place on 7.10.2001. It was therefore necessary and expedient to decide the question as to what was the age of the revisionist on the date of the occurrence. According to the school record, the revisionist's date of birth is 9.8.1984. Therefore, he was less than 18 years on the date of the occurrence. According to the medical report, the revisionist was found aged about 24 years on the date of the medical examination i.e. 29.2.2008, and accordingly he was less than 18 years on the date of the occurrence.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the revisionist submitted that the learned Additional Sessions Judge disbelieved the aforesaid evidence on the ground that the age disclosed by the revisionist during his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was somehow different and on the basis of that disclosure which was made on 12.10.2006, the revisionist was held more than 18 years on the date of the occurrence. The learned Additional Sessions Judge further found that the revisionist had not claimed juvenility in the bail application dated 22.10.2001 moved by him. The question of juvenility can be raised at any stage even at the stage of appeal or revision. Therefore, if the revisionist had not been claimed juvenility in the bail application, it was not material at all for discarding his plea that he was juvenile on the date of the occurrence.;