RAVI NATH VERMA, J. - (1.) CHALLENGE in this criminal revision is to the order dated 24.07.2013 passed by learned Judicial Commissioner -VI, Ranchi in Sessions Trial Case No.685 of 2012 whereby and whereunder the petition filed by the petitioner to declare him juvenile and to transfer his case for inquiry and disposal to the Juvenile Justice Board, has been rejected.
(2.) THE prosecution case, as unfolded in the fardbeyan of the informant Laxminia Devi recorded on 16.05.2012 is that on the said date at about 5.00 p.m. in the evening Hira Sahu, resident of the same village, intimated that the dead body of her son Bartu Sahu is floating in a well and after hearing the said news, she alongwith her family members went near the well and with the help of people, the dead body was taken out. The informant found several injuries on the face and head of her son caused by sharp cutting weapon. She suspects that after killing her son, the dead body was thrown into the well. It is also alleged that only few days before the said instance, the deceased was injured by his wife Roona Devi and her sons Bajrang Sahu (the petitioner) and Chhatu Sahu whereafter a complaint was lodged in Namkum police station on the allegation that her daughter -in -law and grandson wanted to take the property in their hands and their intention was also to sell the land and her daughter -in -law had some illicit relationship with another person.
(3.) IT appears from the record that after lodging of the F.I.R., the police took up the investigation and after completion of the investigation submitted charge sheet against the petitioner and other accused persons for the offences under Sections 302, 201 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. After submission of the charge sheet, the case was committed to the court of Sessions. On 18.10.2012, the petitioner filed an application raising plea of juvenility stating therein that as per his transfer certificate issued by school, his date of birth is 01.04.1997 and as such on the alleged date of occurrence he was below 18 years. It further appears from the record that earlier the bail application of this petitioner was rejected by the court of Sessions as also by the High Court on merit showing him as major as the question of juvenility was not raised at that time and only thereafter the petition was filed for declaring him to be a juvenile enclosing therewith transfer certificate issued by the school. The court below appears to have disbelieved the said certificate and dismissed the bail application taking into consideration the fact that application was made at a belated stage and that in his confessional statement the petitioner had disclosed his age to be 19 years. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner had preferred one Cr. Revision No. 254 of 2013 which was allowed with a direction to the court below to make inquiry regarding the juvenility of the petitioner in terms of Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) and the order of the then Additional Judicial CommissionerVI, Ranchi dated 02.02.2013 was set aside. It further appears from the record that by impugned order, the court below after making an inquiry under Section 7(A) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and also under Rule 12 of the Rules, rejected the prayer for declaring the petitioner as juvenile holding as follows: - "from these documents, it is clear that petitioner was not first attendant in Nirmala Middle School in Class 1 rather he was first admitted in some other school and where he was studied in K.G. and, thereafter, he admitted in Nirmala Middle School in Class 1. Date of commission of occurrence on this case is 16.05.12 and Medical Board opined age of the petitioner on 10.06.13 as 22 -23 years. In absence of any birth certificates as provided u/s 12(a) of the J.J. Act, the age of juvenile conflicts with law has to be determined on the basis of the medical opinion of the duly constituted Medical Board which shall declare the age of juvenile and the same shall be conclusive proof of age as regard the juvenile conflicts with law. The rule also provides that if considered necessary, the benefit is to be given to the child by considering his/her age in the lower side. The Medical Board has opined the age of the petitioner as 22 - 23 years on 10.06.13. The Court considered the age of the petitioner as 22 years (lower side) on 10.06.13. The date of commission of alleged occurrence is 16.05.12. Therefore, in my view the age of the petitioner Bajrang Sahu is on the date of alleged occurrence more than 18 years. In view of the discussion made herein above and considering the opinion of Medical Board and given benefit to the child as determining the age in the lower side, in my view the age of the petitioner is, hereby, declared as 22 years on 10.06.13. The date of alleged occurrence is 16.05.12. Thus, the age of Bajrang Sahu (Petitioner) on the date of alleged occurrence was more than 18 years." Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner while assailing the order impugned, seriously contended that the statute requires the Court or Board only to make "inquiry" and the manner, in which inquiry has to be conducted, is provided in the Rules 2007. Section 7(A) of the Act obliges the court only to make inquiry and not an investigation or a trial and even an inquiry not under the Code of Criminal Procedure but under the provisions of the Act and Rules. But in the present case, the court below has made an inquiry which is beyond the scope of J.J. Act and Rules. It was also submitted that even after examining certificates filed at the instance of the petitioner, the court below directed his matter to a Medical Board for determination of his age in clear violation of Rule 12(3)(a)(i)(ii)(iii) and finally rejected the prayer. Lastly, it was submitted that the order impugned being contrary to and in violation of the provisions of the J.J. Act and Rules, is fit to be set aside and the petitioner be declared as juvenile.;