- (1.) REVISIONIST Atin Jaiswal has come up to this court in it's revisional jurisdiction u/s 53, Juvenile Justice Care and Protection Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 3.1.2011, passed by Additional Session's Judge/Fast Track Court court no.3, Kanpur Nagar, in S.T. No.260 of 1998, State Vs. Atin Jaiswal & others, relating to Crime No.264 of 1997,u/s 302 I.P.C., Police Station Pheelkhana, District Kanpur Nagar, by which order three applications preferred by the revisionist, being application no.76 dated 29.1.2002, application no.176 Kha dated 18.1.2010 and application no.186 Kha dated 24.5.2010 were considered and disposed off by the trial Judge, who held that the revisionist is not a juvenile nor can he be treated as such nor his trial can be separated from other accused. Before delving and deliberating on contentious issues, a brief resume of preceding facts indicate that the revisionist along with his other compatriot assailants, Vishal Kumar Chaurasia and Vishal Jaiswal, indulged into a verbal tirade on the question of consuming non-vegetarian meal, on 21.12.1997 at 8.45 p.m., and in the midst of this verbal onslaught, revisionist whisked out a country-made pistol and shot dead Purshottam by firing on his temple from point blank range. Sustaining fatal gunshot injury, dead Purshottam squatted on the ground. Throwing away his pistol, all the three accused escaped from the incident scene.
(2.) FATHER Ram Ji Das Jaiswal scribed incident F.I.R., covered a distance of one and a half kilometres to Police Station Pheelkhana, District Kanpur Nagar, where he lodged his written FIR at 9.30 p.m. same day as Crime No.64 of 1997 under Section 302 IPC against the three named accused Vishal Kumar Chaurasia, Vishal Jaiswal and Atin Jaiswal (revisionist). Crime was investigated and ultimately it culminated in charge sheeting all the three accused. Following the procedure laid down in Cr.P.C., in short code, for police challani cases, after compliance of Section 207 of the Code, case of accused was committed to Session's court for trial, where it was registered as S.T. No.260 of 1998, State Vs. Atin Jaiswal and others. Accused were charged with offences u/s 302 IPC. It was at this stage, that an application, Annexure No.2, was filed by the revisionist on 19.1.2002 whereby he prayed that an inquiry be made for determining his age and his trial be separated from rest of the accused and it be transferred to the competent authority under the Act, ie: Juvenile Justice Board, for trial. Pending disposal of Annexure No.2, revisionist filed another application 176-Kha on 18.1.2010, copy of which has not been appended along with this revision, whereby he prayed that in view of decision in Hari Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan: JIC 2009 (3) 509 (SC), his application, Annexure No.2, be considered and decided. Pending consideration his both the aforesaid applications regarding his juvenility, revisionist moved a third application on 24.5.2010, vide paper no.186 Kha, Annexure No.IV, whereby he prayed that his application, Annexure No.2 and subsequent application dated 18.1.2010 be considered and decided simultaneously. Contesting revisionist's claim and refuting it, informant filed objections vide paper no. 177 kha and 199 kha, appending therewith revisionist high school mark sheet, TC from Gyan Bharati Inter College, TC from Dayanand College of Law, Mark sheet of LLB 1st year course, on the basis of which revisionist had got himself enrolled as an advocate with UP Bar Council. In all these documents,which were prepared on the information supplied by the revisionist himself, his date of birth is recorded as 28.12.78. It was also objected that the certificate from Nagar Mahapalika does not contain his name Atin Jaiswal and it also does not contain name of mother and her age is recorded as 26 years. Letter by Dr. Mahmood Ali was criticised on the ground that it was a sham document and contained cuttings. There was no signature of the doctor nor his seal was affixed.
(3.) BESIDES above objections both the sides relied upon various judicial pronouncements by the Supreme Court and High courts, to countenance their submissions which are referred to in the impugned order. Ld. Trial Judge, vide common impugned order dated 3.1.2011, decided all the three applications, viz Annexure No.2, application dated 18.1.2010 and Annexure No.4 against the revisionist and negated his claim of being declared to be a juvenile, and resultantly dismissed his prayer for separating his trial from rest of the accused and transferring it to the Board. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, revisionist has approached this court in the instant revision u/s 53 of the Act. I have heard Sri Rajiv Gupta, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Nirvikar Gupta, learned counsel for the informant and learned AGA for the State and have perused the entire material on record.;