- (1.) S. K. Agarwal, J. Heard learned Counsel for the applicants and learned AGA.
(2.) IT is contended by learned Counsel for the applicants that the new Act [juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000] would have been applicable to the case of these two applicants and the old Act having already been repealed has no application in the case of these applicants. In the new Juvenile Justice Act a juvenile is one who has not attained the age of 18 years. These two applicants are involved in an offence under Sections 326/498-A/304-B IPC and Sections 3/4 of the DP Act. According to their school leaving certificates the date of birth of applicant No. 1 is 10-10- 1988 and the date of birth of applicant No. 2 is 1-9-1985, meaning thereby that on the date of occurrence applicant No. 2 was 16 years and applicant No. 1 was about 13 years of age. They were subjected to medical examination also and in radiological examination their age were ascertained as 16 and 17 years. However, as earlier stated, the present age, according to the new definition a juvenile is one who is below 18 years. In the circumstances they were entitled to the relief claimed by them. The offence in this case was committed after the enforcement of the New Act. The trial Court was in error on account of the fact that the repeal of the 1986 Act was not brought to its notice. The fact that the old Act was replaced by the New Act wherein the age has been increased by two years was not being known to the Courts below they have fallen in error in refusing the applicant the benefit of their being a juvenile. It is also little harsh that the trial Court has not accepted their certificates and had placed reliance mainly upon their medical examination report. It is not unknown in law that young persons who come from wealthy family were fed during their childhood properly hence they became sturdy and their ulna and humorous bone used to join with their respective shafts comparatively quickly from those who have not that facility. Probably this was one of the factor why the age has been praised from 16 to 18 years by the Parliament. In the circumstances, the trial Court ought not to have given much weightage to the medical opinion alone to refuse them the benefit of this progressive legislation. As is also known that ages given by the medical experts are only estimation and they are variable by two years either way the benefit to these applicants ought not to have been denied.
(3.) IN the circumstances in my opinion this revision deserves to be allowed. It is accordingly allowed and the case is remanded back to the lower Court. The applicants are directed to appear before the trial Court forthwith. It shall reconsider the whole issue in the light of the observations made above and see that the extension of the benefit that are ensured to the juveniles by the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 is feasible to them. The trial Court will consider their prayer for such reliefs within three weeks in the light of the provisions of the new Act from the date a copy of this order is produced by the applicants. Revision allowed. .;