Saddam Ansari vs The State of Jharkhand

Harish Chandra Mishra, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 11.12.2013 passed by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-III, Ranchi, in S.T. No. 39 of 2013, whereby the application filed by the accused petitioner claiming himself to be a juvenile, has been rejected by the trial Court below.

It appears from the F.I.R., which was lodged on 25.08.2012 that there is allegation against the petitioner to have established physical relationship with the informant for the last six to seven months on the false pretext of marrying her.

The petitioner filed application in the Court below, claiming himself to be a juvenile and in support of his claim he filed his admit card of the Annual Secondary Examination, 2011, which showed his date of birth to be 16.05.1994. The Court got the admit card verified and it was found to be genuine. The Court below found that on the date of lodging the F.I.R., the accused-petitioner was aged 18 years 03 months and 09 days and accordingly, he was not a juvenile.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order passed by the Court below is absolutely illegal, in as much as, according to the F.I.R., the offence had taken place about 6 to 7 months prior to the date of filing of the F.I.R., when the petitioner was certainly a juvenile. It is also pointed out that though in the F.I.R. there is allegation against the petitioner to have subjected the victim to sexual exploitation on several occasions during the said period, but the victim has been examined as P.W.-4, in the Court below, wherein in her examination-in-chief she has stated about only one such occurrence, though in her cross-examination she has stated about two such occurrences, but she has not disclosed the date of second such occurrence. Learned counsel accordingly, submitted that the benefit of this shall also go to the petitioner and this clearly shows that on the date of the alleged offence the petitioner was a juvenile. Learned counsel accordingly, submitted that the impugned order passed by the Court below which has found the petitioner not to be juvenile on the date of filing of the F.I.R., is absolutely illegal and the same cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.

Learned counsel for the State on the other hand has opposed the prayer and has pointed out that there is direct allegation against the petitioner to have subjected the victim to sexual exploitation on several occasions during the period of 6 to 7 months prior to the filing of the F.I.R., and accordingly it cannot be said that the petitioner was not an adult in the subsequent events. Learned counsel accordingly, submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned order, worth interference in the revisional jurisdiction.

From the perusal of the impugned order it is apparent that the Court below has found the petitioner not to be juvenile on the date of filing of the F.I.R. It has not taken into consideration the fact that initially the offence had taken place about 6 to 7 months prior to the date of filing of the F.I.R., and though there is allegation of subjecting the victim to sexual exploitation throughout this period, but the evidence of the victim shows that there was only one such occurrence. Though the victim has stated in her cross-examination that there was second occurrence also, but she has not disclosed as to when the second occurrence had taken place.

The victim was examined in the Court below on 3.7.2013, whereas the impugned order has been passed on 11.12.2013. I am of the considered view that the Court below ought to have taken into consideration all the materials available on record at the time of deciding the claim of juvenility of the petitioner, including the deposition of the victim which was already on record. That having not been done, in my considered view, the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.

Accordingly, the impugned order dated 11.12.2013 passed by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-III, Ranchi, in S.T. No. 39 of 2013, is hereby, set aside and the Court below is directed to pass the order afresh, adjudicating the claim of the petitioner in accordance with law, taking into consideration all the materials available on record, including the evidence of the victim. This application is accordingly, allowed with the direction as above.