Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Revision No.865 of 2012 ====================================================== Chandra Shekhar Prasad Son of late Rajendra Prasad of village- Budhwara, P.S. Guru Govindpur, District Nawada .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. Raushan Kumar Son of Subodh Singh of village- Budhwara, P.S. Guru Govindpur, District Nawada .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rama Kant Sharma, Sr. Advocate Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate For the O.P.No.2 : Mr. Ram Suhawan Singh, Advocate For the State of Bihar : M/s. Shaheen Begum, A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER 4 11-12-2012 Heard. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the order dated 22.6.2012 passed in Sessions Trial No. 22 of 2012/4 of 2012 by the learned Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C IV), Nawada declaring the opposite party no. 2 as ‘juvenile’ under the meaning of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2000 (for short ‘the Act’), has preferred the present revision application under section 53 of the Act questioning the correctness, propriety and validity of the impugned order. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the opposite party no. 2 and his brother Gulshan Kumar are facing criminal prosecution with respect to Govindpur P.S. Case No. 78 Patna High Court CR. REV. No.865 of 2012 (4) dt.11-12-2012 2/5 of 2011 dated 3.10.2011 registered for offences under [STATUTE] . The date of occurrence with respect to aforesaid criminal case is 30.9.2011. The present petitioner is the informant of that criminal case. It is further submitted that on close of investigation chargesheet was submitted, and cognizance was taken against the accused persons including the opposite party no. 2. Consequently, the case was committed to the court of sessions giving rise to Sessions Trial No. 22 of 2012/4 of 2012 pending in the court of learned Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C. IV), Nawada. It is further submitted that while opposite party no. 2 was facing trial, a petition was filed on 5.5.2012 on behalf of the opposite party no. 2 praying therein that he may be declared juvenile under the meaning of the Act. It was pleaded on behalf of the opposite party no. 2 that on the date of occurrence he was below 18 years of age. The grievance of the petitioner is that without following the mandate of Section 7A of the Act, and Rule 12 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules 2007, ( in short Rules) the learned trial court, by the impugned order, has declared the Opposite Party no. 2 as juvenile. It is contended that, admittedly, the opposite party no. 2 and co- accused, Gulshan Kumar are full brothers. In the Marksheet and Patna High Court CR. REV. No.865 of 2012 (4) dt.11-12-2012 3/5 Admit Card, produced on behalf of the opposite party no. 2, before the learned trial court, there is difference of hardly four and half months in between the age of the opposite party no. 2 and his younger brother Gulshan Kumar, which, according to the learned counsel, is not at all believable. Therefore, the learned counsel submits that the documents produced on behalf of the opposite party no. 2 in support of his age were not reliable documents and were rather forged one. It is contended that in the aforesaid factual background the learned trial court ought to have recorded evidence of witnesses, and should have directed for constitution of medical board for assessing the correct age of the opposite party no. 2 for deciding the claim of his juvenility, but that has not been done in the present case. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no. 2 has opposed the payer made on behalf of the petitioner and has supported the impugned order passed by the learned trial court. According to him learned trial court has rightly accepted the date of birth entered into the Marksheet and the Admit Card of the opposite party no. 2 issued by the Bihar School Examination Board. However, learned counsel has fairly submitted that matriculation certificate was not produced on behalf of the opposite party no. 2. He has also not disputed the relationship Patna High Court CR. REV. No.865 of 2012 (4) dt.11-12-2012 4/5 between the opposite party no. 2 and his brother, Gulshan Kumar. However, he has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rajinder Chandra vs. State of Chhattisgarh & another ((2002) 2 SCC 287) and on the judgment of this Court in the case of Rajesh Kumar Singh @ Dipu Singh vs. The State of Bihar & others (2004 (3)PLJR 193). After having heard the parties, this Court is of the opinion that the matter requires reconsideration by the learned trial court. In view of the fact that there is no dispute of relationship between the opposite party no. 2 and his brother, Gulshan Kumar, who is also facing criminal prosecution in the aforesaid criminal case, and there being difference of only four and half months in their age, as per the entry made in the Admit Card and Marksheet, learned trial court ought to have recorded evidence of witnesses and further should have directed for constitution of a medical board in terms of Section 7A of the Act, and Rule 12 of the Rules for assessing the correct age of the opposite party no. 2 and for considering his claim for getting benefits under the provisions of the Act. Under the mandate of law, when a claim of juvenility is raised by an accused before any court under section 7A of the Act, then the court is required to make an enquiry and is required to record evidence of witnesses as per the procedures prescribed Patna High Court CR. REV. No.865 of 2012 (4) dt.11-12-2012 5/5 under section 7A of the Act. Apparently, the mandate of Section 7A of the Act and Rule 12 of the Rules have not been followe

Applicable IPC Section: 448

Statute Text:
Section 448 of the Indian Penal Code. House-trespass. Whoever commits house-trespass shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.