- (1.) IN case, bearing FIR No. 23 dated 20.3.2011 registered at police station Baragudha for offence punishable under Section 302/34 IPC, the respondent No.2 claimed himself to be juvenile and vide order dated 4.8.2011, Juvenile Justice Board, Sirsa did not accept his plea and he was declared as a major. The respondent No.2 filed appeal which was accepted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa vide order dated 28.7.2012. On revision filed by the complainant, the matter was remitted for reconsideration. Again vide order dated 12.8.2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa, the respondent No.2 was declared as juvenile. The petitioner in this petition has challenged the said order.
(2.) THE matter which require consideration is as to whether respondent No.2 was a juvenile at the time of commission of offence. The plea of respondent No.2 that he was a juvenile at the time of commission of offence, was discarded by Juvenile Justice Board, Sirsa and the case was sent for trial before the Magistrate. Respondent No.2 filed an appeal, wherein the appellate Court preferred the date of birth of respondent No.2 mentioned in his matriculation certificate over the date of birth recorded in his birth certificate and declared respondent No.2 as juvenile.
(3.) THE petitioner preferred a criminal revision (3374/2012), which was decided vide order dated 14.3.2013 and the case was remitted for reconsideration with the observations as follows : - "The Court apparently has ignored this fact while relying on this document and ignoring the birth certificate issued by the Registrar of Birth which could have otherwise been taken into consideration in the absence of earlier two documents as per the rules. At the same time, the Court has to keep in view that while determining the question whether accused was juvenile or not, a hyper technical approach is not to be adopted. If two views may be possible on evidence, the Court should lean in favour of holding the accused to be a juvenile in borderline cases. Since some relevant consideration has escaped the notice of Appellate Court it would be appropriate to remit the case back to the Court for re -consideration in the light of observations made above." Learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Sirsa after reconsideration of the matter re -affirmed the earlier order dated 28.7.2012 and respondent No.2 was declared to be a juvenile on the date of commission of alleged offence of 20.3.2011.;