- (1.) THIS revision under Section 397 read with 401 Cr.P.C. filed by the revisionist is directed against order of Sessions dated 7.10.2010 rejecting the application filed under Section 7A of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (for short 'the Act').
(2.) HEARD on the Revision Petition. An FIR No.32/2009 under Sections 363 and 366 IPC was registered against the revisionists on 8.2.2009 at Police Station Thoi on the report of complainant Moduram regarding missing of his minor niece on the intervening night of 7th and 8th of February. Upon completion of investigsation of the case, the prosecution filed a charge sheet for trial of offences under Sections 363, 366 and 376(g) IPC against the revisionist Jairaj, along with his three co-accused, before the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shri Madhopur. The case being triable by Sessions, was committed to the Sessions on 1.6.2009 where the charges under Sections 363, 366 and 376(g) were read over and the trial begun. On 19.3.2010 i.e. after about a year of commencement of trial, the revisionist filed an application under Section 7A of the Act through his father, claiming that the revisionist was a minor on the date of occurrence as his date of birth in school record was 11.8.1993. In support of his application, he filed School Admission Form, copy of Transfer Certificate and copy of Scholar Register. He also examined his father Ramnarayan, elder brother Devlal and Om Prakash Gupta, claiming to be the Head Master of Government Secondary School, Moran (Sawai Madhopur). Learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) vide his impugned order dated 7.10.2010 dismissed the said application. The revisionist, aggrieved by the said order, approached this court by way of present revision, inter alia, on the ground that he has been in judicial custody since 11.3.2009 and that he being a minor, be remanded to Juvenile Home and that his trial be separated from other co-accused and he be tried before Juvenile Justice Board.
(3.) THE learned counsel for the revisionist has argued that the impugned order passed by Additional Sessions Judge, is against the record and has been passed on surmises and conjectures. For determining the age of a minor, the best record is his first school record and as per the school record the date of birth of revisionist was 11.8.1993. As such, on the intervening night of 7th and 8th of February 2009, i.e. the date of occurrence, he was less than 18 years. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State, has argued that the application was an after thought because during investigation and even at the time of reading of charges, he is shown as 20-21 years old. This objection was never raised. Further that his appearance clearly showed that he was not less than 18 years by any means. It was submitted that revisionist is resident of Mitrpura village but copies of school record produced before the court are from Government Secondary School, Moran. Admittedly, according to him Moran and Mitrpura are two separate villages far from each other. It was also argued that in all the documents, interpolation has been done so as to link them with the revisionist, whereas in fact the said record appears to pertain to some other Jairaj. Considered these arguments and perused the record, which shows that the incident is dated 8.2.2009 and the revisionist was arrested on 11.3.2009. The case was committed to Sessions in March 2009 and the trial began. The charges were read over and four witnesses had already been examined. In all the challan documents i.e. arrest memo, potency test report, medical report and reading of charge, the age of revisionist is shown as 20-21 years. ;