- (1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State.
(2.) PETITIONER is aggrieved by the order dated 21.9.2011 passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge -II, Dhanbad in Sessions Trial No.249 of 2008, whereby, the claim of the petitioner that he was juvenile on the date of the occurrence, was rejected by the Court below. It appears from the impugned order that the occurrence had taken place on 24.2.2008, for which, the petitioner was facing the trial and the petitioner claimed to be a juvenile. It further appears from the impugned order that no certificate with respect to age or any other evidence could be adduced by the defence and accordingly, the opinion of the Medical Board was sought for, for determination of age of the petitioner. The Medical Board submitted its report vide letter dated 23.3.2011 assessing the age of the petitioner to be 22 years as on 17.3.2011. The Court below found that on the basis of the medical assessment, the age of the petitioner on the date of the occurrence i.e 24.2.2008 was eighteen years, eleven months and seven days. Learned Court below, accordingly, rejected the prayer of the petitioner, holding that he was above 18 years on the date of the occurrence even according to the opinion of the Medical Board.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order passed by the Court below cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. It has been further submitted that as per the rules prescribed, the petitioner was also entitled to the benefit by considering his age on the lower side within the margin of one year and if the margin of one year is given, the petitioner shall become juvenile on the date of the occurrence i.e. on 24.2.2008. Learned counsel accordingly, submitted that the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.;