Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1145 (JHR)

Saddam Ansari v. State of Jharkhand

2014-11-21

H.C.MISHRA

body2014
ORDER : Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 23.04.2014 passed by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-III, Ranchi, in S.T. No. 39 of 2013, whereby the petitioner has been declared to be a major on the date of occurrence. 3. It may be stated that earlier the claim of juvenility of the petitioner was rejected by the Trial Court below by order dated 11.12.2013, against which the petitioner had moved this Court in Cr. Revision No. 37 of 2014. The said Cr. Revision was allowed by order dated 21.03.2014 by a detailed order taking into consideration the fact that the Court below had rejected the claim of juvenility of the petitioner stating that on the date of lodging the F.I.R., the accused-petitioner was aged 18 years 03 months and 09 days. The age of the petitioner was assessed on the basis of the school certificate submitted by the petitioner himself in which his date of birth was recorded as 16.05.1994. 4. This Court was of the view from the allegation in the FIR that the offence had been committed much prior to the date of the FIR. It had also come on record that in the meantime the victim was examined and she had also mentioned about the period of occurrence, but these facts had not been taken into consideration by the Court below while assessing the age of the petitioner. Accordingly, this Court by order dated 21.03.2014 directed the Court below 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. 5. Pursuant to this order, the Court below has passed the impugned order dated 23.4.2014, again rejecting the claim of the petitioner, taking into consideration all the materials on record, including the evidence of the victim. The Court below has found that the F.I.R. was lodged on 25.8.2012 and it is only stated in the F.I.R. that the accused was in love with the victim from 6 to 7 months before. The Court below has found that the F.I.R. was lodged on 25.8.2012 and it is only stated in the F.I.R. that the accused was in love with the victim from 6 to 7 months before. No date of any offence of rape was given in the said F.I.R. and accordingly, the Court below found that it was not clear from the F.I.R. that she was actually subjected to rape 6 to 7 months prior to the lodging of the F.I.R. Admittedly, on the date of lodging of the F.I.R. the petitioner was aged 18 years 03 months and 09 days. The Court below has also taken into consideration the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 of the Cr. P.C., in which also there is no mention about the date of occurrence. The Court below has also taken into consideration the evidence of the victim as P.W.-4, in the Court below, which was recorded on 3.7.2013. In her evidence the victim has stated that the occurrence had taken place more than one year ago. The Court below took into consideration that by this statement the occurrence had taken place, may be on 3.7.2012 or prior to it. Even on 3.7.2012 his age was 18 years one month and 24 days. Accordingly, the Court below has rejected the claim of juvenility of the petitioner by the impugned order dated 23.4.2014. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order passed by the Court below cannot be sustained in the eyes of law, in as much, as it is not clear even from the evidence of the victim as to how much prior to the FIR the occurrence took place and accordingly, the benefit of the same ought to have been given to the petitioner. Learned counsel accordingly, submitted that the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. 7. Learned counsel for the State submits that there is no illegality in the impugned order and even taking into consideration the evidence of the victim the petitioner was certainly a major one year prior to the date of recording the evidence and even 01 month 24 days prior thereto. 8. 7. Learned counsel for the State submits that there is no illegality in the impugned order and even taking into consideration the evidence of the victim the petitioner was certainly a major one year prior to the date of recording the evidence and even 01 month 24 days prior thereto. 8. After having heard learned counsels for both sides and upon going through the record, I find that even taking into consideration the evidence of the victim, it is apparent that she had deposed on 3.7.2013 that the occurrence had taken place more than one year ago. This period of one year has rightly been calculated by the Court below to be 3.7.2012 or prior to it. It is apparent from the impugned order that even 01 month 24 days prior to 3.7.2012, the petitioner had already attained the majority. In my considered view, the period cannot be stretched far back beyond the period of one year from the date of evidence of the victim. 9. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the some benefit ought to have been given to the petitioner being a juvenile, has no legs to stand, in view of the fact that the petitioner has claimed his age on the basis of a definite date of birth as given in the school certificate. It is not a case that there is any doubt about the date of birth of the petitioner and his age was assessed by the medical board, in which case the benefit was required to be given to the juvenile while considering his age on the lower side within the margin of one year. Since the petitioner has himself claimed his age on the basis of the date of birth given in the school certificate, this benefit cannot be given to him. 10. In view of the aforesaid discussions, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order passed by the Court below, worth interference in the revisional jurisdiction. There is no merit in this application and the same is accordingly, dismissed.