- (1.) Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 27.08.2015 passed by Additional Session Judge, Court No.1, Hardoi in Criminal Misc. Case No.1/2015, the revisionist has preferred this revision, whereby the application for declaring the revisionist as juvenile has been rejected.
(2.) I have heard Shri B.P. Nigam, learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned AGA for the State. No one has appeared on behalf of the opposite party No.2 in spite of sufficient service of notice.
(3.) It has been contended by the learned counsel that the revisionist is involved in Crime No.507/2013, under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and Section 3/4 PACSO Act, relating to P.S. Harpalpur, District Hardoi. After the revisionist was charge sheeted and the trial proceeded, the revisionist moved an application that his date of birth was 20.03.1996 and as such on the date of alleged occurrence he was under 18 years of age. The revisionist also filed a copy of the school transfer certificate issued by the Headmaster, Gotakpur, District Hardoi. The Court below examined the father of the revisionist and his mother as well as Headmaster of the School. As there was discrepancy in the date of birth in the School Certificate, the learned court below found it proper to refer the revisionist to the Medical Board for determination of his age. It appears that the Chief Medical Officer, before whom the matter was referred, constituted the Medical Board and on the basis of Xray, it was found that the revisionist was about 19 years of age. Learned court below considered the material on record and relied upon the certificate issued by the Chief Medical Officer with the finding that the age of the revisionist was about 19 years, his application for declaring him as juvenile was, therefore, rejected.;