DINESH PATHAK,J. - (1.) Heard Sri Akhilesh Srivastava, learned counsel for revisionist, Sri O. P. Mishra, learned A.G.A. for State, Sri Satendra Kumar Upadhyay, learned counsel for O.P. no.2., who has refused to file the counter affidavit, and perused the record on board.
(2.) The instant criminal revision under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C., has been preferred against order dated 22.11.2019 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court, Court No.2, Aligarh in Sessions Trial No.961 of 2012 arising out of Case Crime No.189 of 2012 under Sections 393, 302 IPC, Police Station-Akrabad, District-Aligargh, whereby application dated 09.07.2017 filed by revisionist, claiming himself to be a juvenile at the time of incident, has been rejected.
(3.) In the present matter, revisionist is claiming himself as a juvenile. As per FIR version, in the intervening night of 03/04.05.2012, accused-revisionist along with two other persons barged into the tower with an intention of looting the battery installed there. While they were challenged, two of the accused fled away from the scene and third accused i.e. revisionist was caught hold by the informant's son namely, Bablu and in order to set himself free, accused-revisionist discharged fire shot upon Bablu, who sustained injury on his chest and died on the spot. In the process of catching hold, one wallet, one combination plier (pilash), one wrench (pana), a handle of screwdriver and one white towel fell down on the spot. The wallet contained driving license and identity card of revisionist as well as one mobile sim and cash amounting Rs.30 in it. On the basis of aforesaid recovery from the spot, accused-revisionist has been named in the FIR. Taking the plea of juvenility, revisionist claimed for separate trial and to this effect, he moved an application dated 09.07.2017 before the trial Court to declare him juvenile, as his date of birth is 07.07.1994 and at the time of incident, he was hardly aged about 17 years 9 months and 27 days.;