- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.
(2.) THE instant criminal revision has been preferred against the order dated 23.11.2006 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 4, Lucknow whereby the application of the revisionist claiming himself to be juvenile in conflict with law was rejected in Sessions Trial No. 83 of 1997 (State Vs. Shaila Singh and others).
(3.) IN brief the facts of the instant case are that the revisionist was facing trial for the offence under Sections 498 -A and 304 -B I.P.C. and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Sahadatganj, district Lucknow. The revisionist happens to be husband of the deceased. The occurrence of this case is alleged to have taken place on 31.8.1987. During course of trial, an application was moved on behalf of the revisionist claiming himself to be a juvenile in conflict with law. There was no documentary evidence regarding his age. Since he claimed to be a juvenile, therefore, he was referred for medical examination. Concerned C.M.O., vide his report dated 25.7.2006, reported that his age was 37 years. On the basis of this material, the trial court has held that at the time of the incident, he was above 18 years of age accordingly, rejected the application. Submission of learned counsel for the revisionist is that even if the age reported by the C.M.O. is taken to be true, and one year period is reduced as provided under Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice Care and Protection Rules, 2007, even then the revisionist comes below 18 years of age on the date of incident. It is further submitted that during the course of enquiry, statement of doctor was recorded and he has stated the age of the revisionist may be between 25 to 40 years and it may be also 32 years. It is further submitted that keeping in view the provisions of law and report submitted by the C.M.O., the revisionist was below 18 years and conclusion of the trial court contrary to that is not sustainable under law.;