- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State as also learned counsel for the accused opposite parties No.2 and 3, who have been held to be juveniles by the learned Appellate Court below.
(2.) THE informant -petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 22.8.2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge -1, Pakur, in Cr. Appeal (Juvenile) No.21 of 2013 and Cr. Appeal (Juvenile) No.22 of 2013, whereby in the appeal filed by opposite parties No.2 and 3 against the order dated 3.5.2013 passed by the learned SDJM, Pakur, in G.R. No.571 of 2012, rejecting their claim of the juvenility, was allowed by the learned Appellate Court below, holding that they were juveniles on the date of occurrence.
(3.) LEARNED Appellate Court below has mainly relied upon the admission register of the school proved in course of enquiry by the juveniles and has held that on the date of occurrence, those petitioners were juveniles. However, it may be stated that the admission register showed that opposite party No.2 Nasim Ansari had taken admission in Class 4 whereas opposite party No.3 Shahjahan Ansari has taken admission in Class 2. Placing reliance on those documents, the order passed by learned SDJM, Pakur was set -aside by the learned Appellate Court below, holding that on the date of occurrence, both these petitioners were juveniles. It may be stated that learned SDJM, Pakur, in the order dated 3.5.2013 had held that none of the certificates produced by the juveniles were in accordance with Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules 2007 (herein after referred to as the "Rules"), and the prosecution side had proved the documents to show that the accused Nasim Ansari had obtained a Government contract by order dated 31.3.2012 issued by the Deputy Development Commissioner, Pakur, and the accused Shahjahan Ansari was a voter and in the voter list, his age was shown as 19 years as on 1.1.2013. The date of occurrence in the case being 6.7.2012, learned SDJM, Pakur, held that both these accused persons were not juveniles on the date of occurrence. Learned counsel for the informant -petitioner has relied upon Rules and has submitted that in case the age determination enquiry, the Court, or Board, or the Committee has to take into consideration the matriculation or equivalent certificates if available; and in absence thereof, the date of birth certificate from the school first attended; and in absence thereof, the birth certificate given by the corporation or a municipal authority or a panchayat, and if these documents are not available, the opinion of the Medical Board duly constituted by the Court or the Board, or the Committee has to be obtained, for determining the age of the juvenile. It has been submitted that none of the documents relied upon by the Appellate Court below are the matriculation or equivalent certificates of the opposite parties No.2 and 3, and they are not even the certificates of their dates of birth, issued by the school first attended by those accused persons. Learned counsel has submitted that there is nothing in the record to show that these accused persons, who had admittedly produced the admission registers of Class 2 and 4, had not attended any school prior to that, and in absence of any evidence to show that these schools were the first schools attended by them, the certificates could not be taken into consideration by the Court below. Learned counsel has submitted that these documents were rightly not taken into consideration by the learned SDJM, Pakur, and the documents relied upon by the him, which are the documents relating to the Government contract and the voter list of the accused persons, clearly show that on the date of occurrence, the opposite parties No.2 and 3 were not the juveniles, but these documents have been ignored by the learned Appellate Court below. Learned counsel accordingly, submitted that the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.;