Arun Kumar v. the State of Bihar and Anr.

Judgment

CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: CrlmlnalAppeal No. 347 of 2008 F:rom tho final Order dated 19. 1.2007 of tho High Court of Judicature 1t Patna In Crl. Mlac. No. 2ae212007. R1nJ1n Mukhorjoo and S.C. Gho1h for tho Appellant. r M11nl1h 1<um1r, Gop1I Singh and L.1k1hmi R1m1n Singh for tho R11ponc:lont1. iho Judgmont of tho Court w11 dolivorod by Dr. Afl/UJIT PAIAYAT, J. 1, bOIVO gr1ntod, 2, Ch1llongo in thi1 1ppo11 i1 to tho ordor p111od by 11 l@1rnoc:I Singllil Judgo oftho F11tn1 l=ligh Court qu11hing tho ordor p111od by lo1rnod Addition1I Oi1triot Judglil, F'11t ir1ok Court Vth, Shokhpur1, ~Y tho 11id ordor tho lo1rn@d Addition1I S111icm1 Judgo h@ld th1t ro1pondont No,2=Munn1 1<um1r w11 notjuvcinil@ 1nd, th@roforo, thoro w11 no nood to refer hi• 0111 ARUN KUMAR v. THE STATE OF BIHAR AND ANR. [PASAYAT, J.] 53 to the Juvenile Justice Board for ascertaining of his age and, A then for trial.

It was observed by the High Court that the prayer was rejected only on the ground that two or three witnesses were examined and though the accused was in possession of School Leaving Certificate, mark sheet etc. to show that he was a juvenile, the prayer could not have been rejected. The High Court B in a very cryptic manner observed that the application of the accused deserved to be allowed and directed the court below to consider the accused as a juvenile and to proceed accordingly. 3. Learned counsel for the informant submitted that the C documents produced had been analysed by the trial Court and it was categorically held that at the time of framing charge on observation it was noticed that he was major without any doubt. In the certificate filed his name was disclosed to be Priyatam Bihari though all through his name was stated to be Munna D Kumar. Learned Single Judge of the High Court did not even consider as to how the conclusions of the trial Court suffered from any infirmity.

Merely referring to the stand of the accused and even without analyzing the correctness or otherwise of the observations and conclusions made by the trial Court he came E to hold that the accused was a juvenile. Additionally, the , complainant was a party before the High Court but no notice was issued. There is no appearance on behalf of respondent No.2-accused. 4. Learned counsel for the State supported the stand of F the informant. 5. The High Court has failed to notice several relevant factors. Firstly, at the time of framing charges, the age of the accused was recorded as major. Similarly, the difference in G names in the documents has not been explained by the accused. 6. Further, as rightly contended by learned counsel for appellant, no discussion has been made as to how the conclusions of the trial Court suffered from any infirmity. 54 7. Finally, no notice was issued to the appellant before the mater was disposed of. 8.

Above being the position, the impugned order of the High Court is set aside and the matter is remitted to it to consider the matter afresh and pass a reasoned order in accordance 8 withlaw. 9. The appeal is allowed. D.G. Appeal allowed.