D.K.SINHA, J. - (1.) THIS Cr. Revision is directed against the judgment passed by the Sessions Judge, Garhwa in Cr. Appeal No. 22 of 2007 by which prayer made by the petitioner for declaring him juvenile under Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 was dismissed affirming the order passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Ranchi on 04.09.2007 arising out of Garhwa P.S. Case No. 171 of 2006 corresponding to G.R. No. 594 of 2006.
(2.) THE prosecution story in short was that the petitioner was arrested by the police on 18.12.2006 for the alleged offence under Sections 364/34 I.P.C. and subsequently Sections 302 I.PC. was added against three accused persons including the petitioner. At the time of his remand to the judicial custody, the age of the petitioner was assessed 22 years by the C.J.M. Incharge, Garhwa. Subsequently, the petitioner took the plea of being a juvenile and thereafter, his case record was referred to the Juvenile Justice Board, Garhwa to enquire the matter for determination of his age, as contemplated under Section 49 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, in short the Act. The J.J. Board in course of enquiry recorded the statements of the witnesses, examined the documents produced on behalf of the petitioner and also examined the report of the Medical Board. After discussing the pros and cons, the J.J. Board held that on the relevant time of occurrence the petitioner was no longer juvenile thus the record was sent back to the Court of C.J.M., Garhwa, the petitioner Pankaj Kumar Tiwari was recalled from Observation Home, Ranchi and was remanded to Garhwa Jail as he was held to be above 18 years of age. Against such order passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Sessions Judge, Garhwa and the Sessions Judge observed. From perusal of the impugned order as well as reasons assigned by the learned court below it is crystal clear that the appellant has attempted to place reliance upon a forged school certificate, which could not be relied upon at all. Further medical report about age of the appellant reveals the appellant's age about 19 years. Thus placing reliance upon Rule 22(5)(iv) of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rule 2001 as well as physical appearance of the appellant he was not found the appellant juvenile. I find no valid reason to interfere with the findings and conclusion recorded by the learned court below.
(3.) LEARNED Sr. Counsel Mr. A.K. Kashyap assailed both the order passed in enquiry and the judgment delivered in appeal on the ground that the courts failed to appreciate the merit of the petition of the petitioner who claimed to be a juvenile below 18 years of age on the documentary evidence as well as the report of a duly constituted medical board.;