DK SINHA,J. - (1.) The Petitioner Gautam Giri has preferred this Cr. Revision under Section 53 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 against the order impugned passed by the Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh in Cr. Appeal No. 97 of 2005 on 20.7.2005 whereby and whereunder the plea of the petitioner that he be declared juvenile was dismissed upholding the order of the A.C.J.M., Hazaribagh dated 7.6.2005 arising out of Ramgarh P.S. Case No. 322 of 2004 for the alleged offence under Sections 3021201/34/ 220B/364A I.P.C.
(2.) THE prosecution story in short was that the C.P. No.2 informant stated in his Fardbayan on 15.7.2004 that his nephew Bhavesh Mishra who had gone to Rakesh Tuition Centre, Ranchi Road for tuition in the day hours, as usual, did not return by 5.30 p.m. When Bhavesh Mishra did not return even late in the evening, the informant started searching in near relations but the missing boy could not be located. At about 7.15 p.m. on the same day the informant received call that Bhavesh Mishra was kidnapped and a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs was demanded by the kidnappers as the ransom for the release of the boy. The F.I.R. was instituted against unknown. In course of investigation, the dead body of Bhavesh Mishra was recovered with injuries on his person and the petitioner Gautam Giri with another Kamlesh Kumar Choubey were arrested who confessed their guilt leading to discovery of relevant fact including the weapon used in assassination of Bhavesh Mishra. Later on, in course of investigation the third accused Mukesh Pawan was arrested and was remanded to judicial custody. The case of the petitioner Gautam Giri, on his plea of minority was sent to the AC.J.M., Hazaribagh for enquiry and by the enquiry report dated 7.6.2005 the learned AC.J.M., Hazaribagh observed that since the transfer certificate issued by the school was not exhibited and the only material was the oral evidence adduced by the parents of the petitioner Gautam Giri, he had to rely upon the report submitted by the Medical Board in respect of the determination of the age of the petitioner which was assessed 18 years. Learned A.C.J.M. on the physical appearance of the petitioner found that he was not less than 19 years and that the margin of error of two years in determination of age after radiological examination of either side could not be ruled out and therefore the learned AC.J.M. assessed the age of the petitioner 18 years at the time of alleged occurrence.
(3.) AGAINST such order the petitioner preferred a Criminal Appeal under Section 52 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 which was also dismissed on the ground that the school transfer certificate filed on behalf of the petitioner Gautam Giri did not appear to be reliable in absence of admission register and that no endeavour whatsoever was made on behalf of the petitioner to bring the admission register on record in course of enquiry and considering the argument advanced on behalf of the informant that if the benefit of the variation of age up to two years, by either side, was taken for determination of the age of the petitioner, it would be against the provisions of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, the learned Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh dismissed the appeal without appreciation of Section 12 of the Act.;