Sujeet Kumar vs State of Jharkhand

Mr. Ananda Sen, J.—This petition of the accused petitioner praying to declare him as a juvenile was rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge II, FTC, Bokaro resulting in filing this revision application.

The Additional Sessions Judge II, FTC, Bokaro in S.T. No. 300 of 2008 passed an order on 8.4.2015 holding that the accused-petitioner is not a juvenile and thus, he cannot take the benefit of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. The petitioner, who is an accused of an offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code claims that on the date of occurrence he is a juvenile and his case be transferred to the Juvenile Justice Board for further proceeding.

After hearing the parties, the court below dismissed the said application which gives rise to this revision application.

I have heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the State and perused the record.

The accused faces trial for an offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code as alleged by the informant Sangita Kumari stating therein that on the pretext of marriage, the accused committed rape upon the victim-informant. She further states that in the month of May, the year before FIR was lodged, the accused got a job in the Railway and when he used to come on holidays, he used to indulge in sexual intercourse with the victim on the pretext of marriage. She further stated that when the proposal of marriage was given to the accused and his family, they flatly refused and they demanded a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- for solemnization of the marriage. She further states that the accused flatly refused to marry with her. An FIR was lodge on 24.4.2008 on the written report of the informant but as per the FIR, the date of occurrence is some time in the month of May, 2007 and thereafter. The accused produced a certificate of matriculation issued by the Jharkhand Secondary Examination Board which shows his date of birth is 18.7.1986. As per the said date of birth recorded in the Matriculation certificate, the petitioner has attained majority on 18th July, 2006.The allegation as per FIR is that the informant was subjected to sexual exploitation on the pretext of marriage which continued after May, 2007. That being so, on May, 2007, as per the date of birth recorded in the Matriculation certificate, the petitioner is definitely more than 18 years.

The argument of learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that on the date of occurrence, he was not 18 years of age and was a minor, cannot be accepted though FIR suggests that sexual harassment went on started 3-4 years, prior to lodging of the FIR, but specific instances as given which relates to the period after May, 2007.

Thus, in my opinion, the petitioner, who was a major, after July, 2006 cannot claim to be treated as a juvenile. The court below after considering all these aspects of the matter has correctly held that the plea of juvenility is not available to the petitioner.

I find no illegality in the impugned order and hence, this revision application is dismissed.

Interim order passed on 12.8.2015 is vacated.