IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1204 of 2011 Ram Pravesh Singh S/O Thakur Singh, resident Of village - Mohammadpur , Police Station - Garkha , District - Saran at Chapra . …………….Petitioner Versus The State Of Bihar Through Home Secretary , Bihar , Patna. ………..Opposite Party ----------- 5. 25.10.2011 The convict-petitioner has preferred this revision application against the order dated 22.01.2011 passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Saran at Chapra in Cr. Misc. No.1/2010 by which a petition under Section 7A of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) has been dismissed. On the basis of the report of Baijnath Singh, Garkha P.S. Case No.5 (7) of 1973 (G.R.No.1244/1973) was registered under Sections 302, 147, 148 and 149 of the I.P.C. After investigation, charge-sheet was submitted. Cognizance was taken. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions. The petitioner and others were convicted by the learned trial court (1st Additional Sessions Judge, Saran at Chapra) vide the judgment and order dated 30.05.2001 and the petitioner was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life 2 and also fine. The petitioner filed Cr. Appeal No.219/2001, which was heard alongwith Cr. Appeal Nos.265/2001 and 344/2001 filed by the accused persons. In Cr. Appeal No.344/2001, the sentence of the accused Bachcha Singh was set aside and the appeals filed by the other convicts including the petitioners were dismissed by a Division Bench of the Patna High Court vide judgment and order dated 14.11.2007. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred Cr. Appeal No.122/2009 and altogether eight Cr. Appeals were filed which were heard together by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The appeals filed by the accused Thakur Singh, Akhilesh Singh and Kesho Singh were allowed and the appeals of remaining six appellants including the petitioner were dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide judgment and order dated 14.05.2010. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner filed a petition under Section 7A of the Act for inquiring his claim regarding the juvenility on the date of occurrence and to refer his case to the forum under the Juvenile Justice Act. He has further submitted that the plea of juvenility of the petitioner was taken 3 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court by annexing his School Leaving Certificate in which his date of birth entered into the school register was 23.09.1958, which was made Annexure P/2 to the Special Leave Petition at page 59 and his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. being annexed P/3 at page 60, but the question of the petitioner being a juvenile was not dealt with and the appeal of the petitioner has been dismissed. The learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge has rejected the petition on the ground that the case of the petitioner is not similar to the accused Bachcha Singh. The age of the Bachcha Singh was assessed 22 years at the time of statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. While the age of the accused-petitioner was assessed 25 years at the time of recording his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The plea of juvenility of the accused Bachcha Singh was raised before the Patna High Court. While the conviction and sentence of the accused petitioner has been confirmed up to the Hon’ble Supreme Court and his plea of juvenility was not considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Considering all these matters, the petition filed by the petitioner has been dismissed. Learned counsel for the 4 petitioner submits that the plea of juvenility can be raised at any stage under Section 7A of the Act. In support of his contention, he has referred to a decision in the case of Hari Ram Versus State of Rajasthan and another reported in (2009) 13 Supreme Court Cases 211. There is no dispute that the plea of juvenility can be raised before any court at any time. The learned counsel for the State submits that the plea of juvenility has been raised before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, but the plea has not been accepted. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed a petition under Section 7A of the Act. After considering, the learned trial court has found that the petitioner was not a juvenile on the alleged date of occurrence and the petition has been dismissed. No interference is required by this Court in the impugned order. It appears that Section 7A of the Act has been inserted in the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Amendment Act, 2006 (33 of 2006) by Section 8 w.e.f.22.08.2006. It further appears that after conviction by the learned trial court, the petitioner preferred Cr. Appeal in 5 the Patna High Court, which was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court vide judgment and order dated 14.11.2007, but the plea of juvenility of the petitioner was raised before the Hon’ble Supreme Court as it has been mentioned in Paragraph 11 of this revision application. It has also been stated that the School Leaving Certificate and the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. made by the petitioner were annexed in the Special Leave Petition at page nos. 59 and 60 respectively. Although no order has been passed on the plea of juvenility, but it will be presumed that the plea taken has been rejected by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The learned trial court is also of the opinion that the petitioner Ram Pravesh Singh was not a juvenile on 5.07.1973 the alleged date of occurrence and the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 7A of the Act has been dismissed. Considering the facts and circumstances stated above, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order. This petition is dismissed. V.K. Pandey ( Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)