Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 110 (ORI)

Bapuni @ Chandan Mohapatra v. State of Orissa

2017-01-25

S.K.SAHOO

body2017
JUDGMENT S. K. SAHOO, J. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for State as well as learned counsel for the informant. The petitioner Bapuni @ Chandan Mohapatra who is an accused in Lingaraj P.S. Case No.114 of 2010 which corresponds to Crl. Tr. No. Case No.36/2/7 of 2013/2011 pending in the Court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Bhubaneswar has challenged the impugned order dated 11.11.2016 passed by the learned Trial Court in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner under section 7 (1) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 for declaring the petitioner as a juvenile. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in support of the plea of juvenility, not only the petitioner examined three witnesses but also exhibited certain material documents like the admission register of Vani Vidya Mandir, Palaspalli, Bhubaneswar in which the petitioner first took admission in K.G.I. on 01.04.1997, the transfer certificate of the school and also the discharge slip of the mother of the petitioner from Municipal Hospital, Bhubaneswar which has been marked as Ext.5 and all the evidence adduced by the petitioner clearly establish that his date of birth was 16.08.1993 and since the date of commission of offence is 08.08.2010, therefore, the petitioner was a juvenile as on the date of occurrence. It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned Trial Court has not properly assessed the materials available on record and erroneously came to the conclusion that the petitioner was not a juvenile as on the date of commission of offence. Learned counsel for the State as well as learned counsel for the informant submitted that even though the discharge slip has been proved by the petitioner but since the concerned register from the Municipal Hospital, Bhubaneswar as well as birth certificate issued by the Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation have not been proved, there was every justification on the part of the learned Trial Court not to accept the entries made in the discharge slip. The learned counsel for the petitioner on the other hand submitted that in the meantime, the petitioner has obtained the birth certificate issued by the Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation which has been annexed to this revision petition as Annexure-3 which also indicates that the date of birth of the petitioner was 16.08.1993 which corroborates the entry in the admission register of Vani Vidya Mandir, Palaspalli, Bhubaneswar where the petitioner took the first admission in K.G.I., the date of birth mentioned in the transfer certificate of the school as well as the entry in the discharge slip which has been marked as Ext.5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that if another opportunity will be provided to the petitioner to produce the birth certificate as well as to call for the concerned register from the Municipal Hospital, Bhubaneswar then the petitioner can very well substantiate that his date of birth was on 16.08.1993 and therefore, he was a juvenile as on the date of commission of alleged offence. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties and on perusal of the impugned order and the documents produced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the view that the learned Trial Court has not adjudicated the matter properly and therefore, the impugned order dated 11.11.2016 is not sustainable in the eye of law and the same is hereby set aside. Learned Trial Court is directed to hold further inquiry in accordance with law and opportunity shall be provided to the petitioner not only to produce the birth certificate but also to call for the necessary register from the Municipal Hospital, Bhubaneswar or to examine any further witness in support of the plea of juvenility. After the relevant documents are produced and further evidence is adduced, the learned Trial Court shall pass a fresh order in accordance with law considering the total documents produced as well as oral evidence without being influenced by the impugned order dated 11.11.2016. The entire exercise should be completed within a period of four weeks from the date of production of the certified copy of this order. Accordingly, the CRLREV is allowed. The impugned order dated 11.11.2016 passed by the learned Trial Court is hereby set aside. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application. CRLREV allowed.