RAJUL BHARGAVA, J. - (1.) Heard Sri Imran Khan holding brief of Sri Manish Tiwary, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri D.P. Singh, learned senior counsel assisted by P.K. Dube, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 and learned for the State.
(2.) The present revision is directed against the judgement and order dated 2.6.2000 passed by District and Sessions Judge, Auraiya in Criminal Appeal No. 01 of 2000 whereby the he has dismissed the appeal filed by the revisionist and upheld the judgement and order dated 24.5.2000 passed by Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Court/ C.J.M. Auriaya in Case Crime No. 03/2000 u/s 302, 324 IPC, P.S. Auraiya, District Auraiya, whereby he has declared the opposite party no. 2 Pankaj Agnihotri to be juvenile in conflict with law and ordered that his case be separated from that of the other co-accused and be tried by the Juvenile court.
(3.) The relevant facts in brief, for deciding the present revision are that the opposite party no. 2 was nominated as an accused u/s 302, 324 IPC in the First Information Report lodged by the revisionist regarding an incident, which is said to have taken place on 6/7.01.2000 at 1.15 AM. After investigation the applicant and other co-accused were chargesheeted and put to trial. It transpires that opposite party no. 2 made a claim of juvenility before the Juvenile court stating therein that his date of birth as per the school records and other documents is 04.11.1984, therefore, he was less than 16 years of age on the date of incident and thus benefit of Juvenile Justice Act be given and he may be declared as juvenile.;