NARESH KUMAR DIXIT Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revisionist by means of this criminal revision has challenged the order dated 09.06.2015 passed by Additional Session Judge/Special Judge (E.C. Act), Hardoi in Session Trial No.366/2000, whereby his application for declaring him juvenile on the date of occurrence, has been rejected.

(2.) The brief facts are that the first information report was lodged by the mother of the deceased on 06.09.1999 against four persons including the revisionist, which was registered under Sections 302/34, 352 IPC Police Station Atrauli, District Hardoi. After the charge-sheet was submitted and the trial proceeded, the revisionist moved an application on 20.10.2010 claiming himself to be juvenile and also making a prayer that his case be sent to Juvenile Justice Board. According to the revisionist, his date of birth is 12.06.1983 and as such he was under eighteen years of age at the time of occurrence. The revisionist also filed certificate issued by Bhagat Singh Janta School, Sandila Hardoi and the transfer certificate issued by the Principal of Janta Inter College, Hardoi. However, the court after consideration of these documents came to the conclusion that these documents were not worth relying and accordingly his application was rejected on 16.02.2013.

(3.) The revisionist challenged this order before this Court by filing Criminal Revision No.301/2013, which was decided on 25.11.2014. This Court while dismissing the revision kept it open for the revisionist to adduce such evidence before the court concerned, which is permissible under the law. The revisionist thereafter filed the scholar register and transfer certificate form along with the family register of Gram Panchayat in which also his date of birth was mentioned as 12.06.1983. The revisionist in order to prove the said documents examined the assistant clerk of Janta Inter College, Sunil Kumar Singh, Gram Panchayat Adhikari. However, the learned trial court again did not find the documents reliable and on the basis of his physical appearance, the impugned order was passed and it was held that the revisionist was not juvenile on the date of occurrence.