Sankar Acharyya, J. - (1.) This revisional application has been filed by Tultul Sk. alias Nure Hasan and Bulbul Sk. alias Nurezzaman both sons of Nure Islam under Sections 397/401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short Cr.P.C.). Both the petitioners have been made accused in Nalhati Police Station Case No. 163 of 1991 dated 23.09.1991 under Sections 147/148/149/427/325/326/302/109 of the Indian Penal Code (G.R. Case No. 583 of 1991). Said case is now pending as Sessions Case No. 34 of 1996 in the Court of learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track, 1st Court, Rampurhat, Birbhum. Petitioners have challenged an order dated 03.03.2010 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track, 1st Court, Rampurhat, Birbhum in S.C. Case No. 34 of 1996.
(2.) In the said Fast Track Court both the petitioners claimed themselves as were minors on the date of alleged occurrence that is 23.09.1991 and so their case may be splitted up and decided before the concerned Juvenile Justice Board under the provisions of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act. Inter alia, the petitioners have contended that the petitioners submitted relevant documents of their education before the learned Additional Sessions Judge and their ossification test was also done twice under orders of that learned Court to ascertain their age. Identity of the petitioners was also verified by the officer-in-charge of Nalhati Police Station under the order of learned Additional Sessions Judge and it revealed that petitioner Tultul Sk. and Nure Hasan are names of same person and petitioner Bulbul Sk. and Nurezzaman are the names of same person. In the impugned order learned Additional Sessions Judge rejected the prayer of the petitioners due to suspicion relating to the identity of the petitioners and thereby caused grave miscarriage of justice. Petitioners have prayed for setting aside the impugned order.
(3.) At the time of hearing this revisional application learned Advocate for the petitioner has drawn my attention to the impugned order dated 03.03.2010 and has argued that the learned Judge in the Fast Track Court did not make any finding about the age of the petitioners on the date of alleged occurrence which is obligatory for the Court as and when the petitioners claimed themselves as juveniles on the date of alleged occurrence. He relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Ranjeet Goswami v. State of Jharkhand reported in 2013 (4) AICLR 600 . Learned Advocate for the state respondent made his submission supporting the impugned order.;