SANDEEP MEHTA, J. - (1.) By way of this revision, the petitioner seeks to challenge the order dated 30.5.2016 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Jalore in Cr.Case No.42/2016 in relation to the proceedings of F.I.R. 37/2016 registered at the P.S. Nosra whereby, the application filed on behalf of the petitioner for being declared as a juvenile was rejected.
(2.) The petitioner is facing trial before the learned Sessions Judge for the offences under Sections 323, 341, 376 and 511 I.P.C. and Section 7/8 of POCSO Act. The incident of attempted sexual assault on Sushri 'G', daughter of the complainant by the petitioner Sujaram @ Sujanmal allegedly took place on 26.3.2016. The F.I.R. was lodged by respondent Smt.Hanja Devi mother of the girl on the very same day i.e. 26.3.2016. After the case was committed, the petitioner submitted an application before the learned Sessions Judge, Jalore claiming that he was a juvenile on the day of the occurrence with his date of birth being 7.7.1999 as entered in the Adarsh Govt. Sr. School, Baori, Jalore. A copy of the scholar register of the said school was also presented alongwith the application. The petitioner's father Shri Hadman Ram supported the application by an affidavit. The trial court conducted an inquiry into the averments made by the petitioner in his application. The Headmaster Kailash Chandra Joshi, who appeared in the court in connection with the inquiry, stated that no student by the name of Sujaram S/o Hadmana Ram had ever studied in the school but a boy named Sujanmal Meena S/o Hadman Ram resident of Baori had been admitted in the school and the entry of his admission was made at Sr.No.1664 of the scholar register Article-3. The student was admitted in the school on 15.7.2008 and his name was struck off because of prolonged absence. Adverting to the difference in names, the trial court proceeded to hold that the entry in the scholar register was not that of the petitioner's admission and rejected the application submitted by him for being declared as a juvenile vide order dated 30.5.2016 which is challenged in the instant revision.
(3.) Shri K.S.Lodha learned counsel representing the petitioner drew the Court's attention to the scholar register Article-3 and urged that the petitioner's actual name is Sujanmal whereas his name of calling is Sujaram and that is why the discrepancy in names occurred while getting the petitioner admitted in the school. He urged that the fact that the petitioner is the person whose name appears at Sr.No.1664 of the said scholar register is duly verified from a very significant circumstance that the petitioner's sister Shobha and brother Suraj were also admitted in the very same school in the years 2000 and 2002 respectively and their names are entered on the very same page of the scholar register Article-3. The parents' name of all the three children are recorded as Smt.Rakmo and Hadmana Ram in the scholar register. He thus urged that the trial court clearly erred in relying on the trivial discrepancy while rejecting the application filed on behalf of the petitioner for being declared as a juvenile. He urged that the prosecution, if it so desired could have led positive evidence to challenge the claim of the petitioner for being declared as a juvenile by proving that Hadmana Ram and Rukma have another son who goes by the name Sujanmal. However, no such evidence was led by the prosecution. He thus implored the Court to set aside the impugned order and to declare the petitioner to be a juvenile and send his case to the concerned Juvenile Justice Board for further proceedings. ;