PANKAJ BHANDARI,J. - (1.) Petitioner has preferred this revision petitions aggrieved by order dated 18.04.2017 passed by Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Sikar (Raj.) and Special Judge, Protection of Children from Sexual offences Act, Sikar (Raj.) whereby, charges have been framed against the petitioner for offences under Sections 452, 363, 365 and 366 of I.P.C. and section 5 (1) 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and alternative Section 376 (2) (N) of I.P.C. Section 3 (I) (XII), 3 (2) (V) of SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
(2.) It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that framing of charges under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act is perverse as the prosecutrix was a major on the date of commission of the offence.
(3.) It is contended that the school certificate which was produced by the prosecution mentioned the date of birth of the prosecutrix as 20.07.1994, the date of the incident being 15.04.2015, the prosecutrix was 19 years and 9 months old on the date of the occurrence. It is also contended that the Court below has erred in relying on the medical report as the Court was bound to consider the age in accordance with Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children from sexual offences) Rules 2015.;