DEOKI NANDAN PRASAD,J. - (1.) THE petitioner has filed this application under Section 53 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 against the order dated 20.3.2002 whereby the learned Sessions Judge, Giridih passed the order by affirming the order dated 14.2.2002 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate under Section 32 of the Juvenile Justice Act by which the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate held the age of the petitioner (Prem Chand Sao) between 19 -20 years and the petitioner was not found to be a Juvenile under the Juvenile Justice Act in connection with Nimiyaghat PS Case No. 66 of 2001 vide T.R. No. 1134 of 2002 registered under Sections 366A and 376(2)(G)/34, IPC.
(2.) SHORT facts giving rise to this application is that the father of the victim Bansi Murmu lodged a First Information Report alleging therein that his daughter came to Isri Bazar and thereafter she went to Parasnath Railway Station from where she went for easing near the water tank but thereafter she did not come back. The accused persons including the petitioner also went to that side at that relevant time. The informant started searching his daughter but she could not be traced and thereafter the first information was lodged against unknown. The petitioner was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 8.9.2001. The petitioner had filed a petition under Juvenile Justice Act on the ground that the petitioner has been a juvenile. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Giridih made an enquiry and held by the order that he is aged 19 -20 years and he is not juvenile. On being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Sessions Judge who also disposed of the appeal by affirming the order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, hence this application.
(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the Court below committed an error in passing the order without applying their judicial mind as both Courts did not consider the birth certificate granted by the school where the petitioner was admitted and his date of birth is 10.3.1986 and the petitioner was a regular student of Class Xth and his serial No. in the admission register is 42 but even then the Court below did not appreciate the school certificate and the learned Court below passed the order on the basis of the report of Medical Board which is highly presumptive and without any basis. It is further submitted that during enquiry, two witnesses including the father of the petitioner was examined but without examining the evidence of doctor/civil surgeon, the Court below passed the order on presumption about the age of the petitioner is between 19 -20 years.;