IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.47599 of 2006 PAPPU KUMAR @ RAM RANJAN KUMAR Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 4 14.8.2008 Heard Sri Manindra Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Jharkhandi Upadhaya, the learned A.P.P. for the State. The petitioner herein has prayed for the quashing of the order dated 10.7.2006 passed by the learned Presiding Judge, Fast Track Court No. III, Vaishali at Hajipur, in Sessions Trial No. 468 of 2001, arising from Sarai P.S. Case No. 70 of 1996, whereby he has unceremoniously rejected the prayer of the petitioner to be declared as a juvenile on the date of occurrence and send his case to the Juvenile Court for enquiry. As before the Sessions Court so before me, the prayer for being declared as a juvenile is sought to be founded on the twin grounds of the assessment of his age by a Medical Board and the Matriculation Certificate. In this connection it was submitted that a Medical Board constituted to determine his age in connection with Sarai P.S. Case No. 71 of 1996 had examined him on 25.10.1996 and had assessed his age as about 16 years and whereas the Matriculation Certificate revealed his date of birth as 21.2.1981, both of which would mean that on the date of occurrence which was 21.8.1996, the petitioner was below 16 - 2 - years of age and therefore a juvenile on the date of the occurrence and as such he could not be tried with the others at a general trial in view of the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2000 and his case was statutorily required to be sent to the Juvenile Court for enquiry. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner appears to be remiss of two important material facts, the first of which is that in another case, being Sarai P.S. Case No. 71 of 1996, which is also in respect of an occurrence of the same day, the petitioner neither claimed to be a juvenile on the day of the occurrence nor was he tried as a juvenile and without any demur subjected himself to a general trial which ended in his acquittal. It has very rightly been observed on this count that a person cannot be a juvenile for one purpose and an adult for some other purpose. The second material fact which requires due consideration is that in his statement under section 313 Cr.P.C. recorded on 8.12.2005, the petitioner claimed to be aged 26 years which is also the age assessed by the Court. Computing backwards, it would mean that on the date of occurrence the petitioner was aged about 16 years and 8 months which effectively would mean that the petitioner had conveniently crossed the age barrier fixed by the statute for being considered as a juvenile. The petitioner has not come to this Court with - 3 - clean hands. The rejection of the petition and prayer of the petitioner by the Court below are on cogent grounds which are neither unwarranted nor fit to be interfered with. Accordingly, there is no merit in this application which is dismissed. Spd/- (Abhijit Sinha, J.)