- (1.) By way of this revision application, the petitioner Ajit Pramanik takes exception to the order dated 09.03.2015 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-V, Dhanbad in Sessions Trial No.180 of 2012 whereby and whereunder the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 7(A) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) read with Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) for declaring him Juvenile, has been rejected.
(2.) It appears from the record that at the instance of the informant Ruksana Khatoon, the fardbeyan was recorded and the F.I.R. was lodged on the allegation that in the intervening nigh of 27- 28, January, 2012 when the informant was sleeping in her house, at about 1.00 a.m. someone knocked the door. The informant anticipating his father or brother knocking the door opened the door, but the accused Ajit Pramanik (the petitioner) was found to be standing, who forcibly entered into the room and committed rape upon her and when the father of the informant came to house, the petitioner anyhow fled away. The informant narrated the entire incidence to her father whereafter her fardbeyan was recorded.
(3.) It further appears that during pendency of trial, the petitioner filed a petition dated 19.12.2014 claiming himself to be a juvenile and prayed that on the alleged date of occurrence he was less than 18 years of age but as he never attended the school at any point of time and as such he has no school certificate and his matter may be referred to a duly constituted Medical Board for assessment of his juvenility. The court below by order impugned dated 09.03.2015 rejected his prayer for assessment of his age holding as follows:- "from his physical appearance his age appears to be near about 25 years. At the time of first remand by the Ld. Lower Court on 28.01.2012 on the basis of physical appearance the age of accused was assessed as 22 years. From perusal of memo of arrest it also transpires that the age of accused has been mentioned as 22 years which has been signed by two independent witnesses. It is not a marginal case for determination of age and assessment made by the court is full and final on the basis of physical appearance of accused according to Rule 12(2) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, so there is no any question of constituting the medical board in this case as provided in Rule 12(3)(b) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 and no any further inquiry is needed and prima facie it appears from the physical appearance that he is an adult of 25 years of age at present.";