- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.
(2.) Petitioner is aggrieved by the Judgment dated 18.2.2012 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa, in Cr. Appeal No. 48 of 2010, whereby the appeal filed against the order dated 30.11.2010 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chaibasa, in G. R. Case No. 443 of 2010, rejecting the claim of the petitioner to be juvenile, was dismissed by the learned Appellate Court below.
(3.) The facts of the case lie in short compass. Petitioner has been made accused in Gua (Barajamda) P. S. Case No. 49 of 2010, corresponding to G. R. No. 443 of 2010 for the offence under Section 302/201/379/34 of the IPC. The date of occurrence is 11.8.2010. It appears that the petitioner was apprehended in connection with this case and in the Court below the petitioner claimed to be a juvenile. The Court below itself entered into an enquiry for determining the age of the petitioner and in course of enquiry, the School Leaving Certificate of the petitioner was produced. Two witnesses were examined in support of the claim of the petitioner in the Court below, in which PW 2 Dasrath Gope, who is uncle of the petitioner, had produced the School Leaving Certificate of the petitioner and in his cross-examination, this witness had disclosed that the petitioner was eight years younger than him (PW 2). The Court below found that the uncle of the petitioner was about 30 years of age and deducting 8 years from his age, petitioner appeared to be more than 21 years of age on the date of occurrence. The Court below also taken into consideration the physical built of the petitioner and held that the petitioner was not a juvenile. The appeal filed against the said order was also rejected by the Appellate Court below by Judgment dated 18.2.2011.;