IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY THE EIGHTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND SEVEN : PRESENT: THE HON`BLE SRI JUSTICE: D.S.R. VARMA AND THE HON`BLE SRI JUSTICE: K.C. BHANU CRIMINAL APPEAL. No. 999 & 1026 OF 2006 CRLA. NO. 999 OF 2006 (Criminal Appeal under Sec. 374 (2) Crl. P.C. against the Judgment of the Court of the Sessions Judge, Guntur passed in S.C. No. 337 of 2005 dated: 16-06-2006) Between: 1. Somarouthu Sivaramakrishnaiah alias Sivaramakrishna, S/o. Satyanarayana (A-1) 2. Somarouthu Veeraiah, S/o. Venkateswarlu (A-6) 3. Somaroughu Raghavaiah, S/o. Venkateswarlu (A-9) 4. Somarouthu Venkata Lakshmi Narasimha Rao @ Narasimha Rao, S/o. Venkateswarlu (A-10) (All are residents of Vellaluru Village, Ponnur Mandal, Guntur District) ………Appellant AND The State of A.P., rep. by Public Prosecutor. … Complainant/Respondent CRLA. NO. 1026 of 2006 (Criminal Appeal under Sec. 374 (2) Crl. P.C. against the Judgment of the Court of the Sessions Judge, Guntur passed in S.C. No. 337 of 2005 dated: 16-06-2006) Between 1. Somarouthu Satyanarayana (A-2) 2. Somarouthu, Venkateswarlu (A-3) 3. Somarouthu Murali Krishna @ Murali (A-4) 4. Kattula Hari, S/o. Nancharaiah (A-5) 5. Suda Anjaneyulu, S/o. Nageswara Rao (A-7) (All are residents of Vellaluru Village, Bhattiprolu Mandal, Guntur District) … Appellants AND The State of A.P., rep. by Public Prosecutor. … Complainant/Respondent These Appeals coming on for hearing upon perusing the Appeals and grounds filed herein and the order of the High Court dated: 01-11-2006, 16- 11-2006, 02-02-2007 & 13-08-2007 made in CRLA.MP. No. 1893 of 2006 and upon hearing the arguments of Sri C. Praveen Kumar, Advocate for the Appellants in CRLA. No. 999 of 2006 and of Sri K. Suresh Reddy, Advocate for the Appellants in CRLA. No. 1026 of 2006 and of the Public Prosecutor for the respondents in both the Crl.A. Nos. 999 & 1026 of 2006, the Court made the following ..2.. ORDER: “The basic question that is involved, in both these Criminal Appeals, is as to whether Accused Nos. 2 and 3 in S.C. No. 337 of 2005 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Guntur, were juveniles as on the date of commission of offence, as contemplated under the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (for brevity ‘the Act’). It is borne out from the record that, initially, the matter had been refereed for enquiry, as regards the juvenile status of Accused Nos. 2 and 3, to the V Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate-cum-Principal Magistrate of Juvenile Justice Board at Hyderabad and upon, the accused being produced before the said Court, they were subjected to ossification test by the department of Forensic Medicine, Osmania Medical College/Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad. Accordingly, a report, dated: 28-11-2006, has been sent by the said department to the said Court, assessing the age of Accused Nos. 2 and 3 as 19 and 20 years, respectively. Subsequently, it has been brought to the noticed of this Court that the V Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate-cum-Principal Magistrate of Juvenile Justice Board at Hyderabad, is not the competent authority under the Act and the same had been against referred to the IV Additional judicial Magistrate of First Class, Guntur, who is the competent authority under the Act. Accordingly, the said Court at Guntur, after receiving the report, dated: 18-09-2007, from the Department of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology, Guntur Medical College/Guntur General Hospital, assessed the age of Accused Nos. 2 and 3 as 21 and 20 years, respectively. Now, when the matter came up for hearing, it is brought to the notice of this Court by Sri P. Bal Reddy, learned senior counsel, that there is school record in order to show that the above accused were juveniles as on the date of commission of the offence. But, it is to be seen from the record that no such school record has been either pressed into service or considered by the said Magistrate, who is the competent authority under the Act, in which case, it is difficult for this Court to solely rely upon the reports of the Forensic Departments of either Osmania General Hospital or Guntur General Hospital, particularly, when there is availability of school record to show that accused were juveniles at the time of commission of the offence, and, any conclusion arrived at, without looking into such certificates or the contents of such certificates to be proved by the school authorities concerned, would be improper. That is what has been precisely missing in the present case. The school record as is being submitted by the learned senior counsel was not pressed into service. Perhaps, the said Magistrate, while conducting an enquiry did not go into the aspect of availability of any documentary proof as regards the age of the accused and in a routine manner subjected the accused to the medical test. In our view, the procedure adopted by the said Magistrate is not adequate. ..3.. Accordingly, we send the matter back to the IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Guntur, who is the competent authority under the Act, directing him to conduct a detailed enquiry, after informing the accused as to whether any documentary or oral evidence is available in support of their contention that they were juveniles as on the date of commission of the offence and give them an opportunity to examine any witness in this regard and also taking into account, if necessary, the medical report of the Guntur General Hospital, and assess the age of the accused and forward the report to this Court. This exercise shall be completed within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is needless to mention that the accused are at liberty to engage a counsel on their behalf, if not, they are entitled to free legal aid. Post after four weeks”. SD/-N.S.NARASIMHACHARYULU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// FOR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR To 1. The District and Sessions Judge, Guntur, Guntur District. 2. The IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Guntur, Guntur District. 3. The Superintendent, Central Jail, Rajahmundry, E.G. District 4. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. (OUT) 5. The Section Officer, Criminal Section, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. 6. T h e Registrar (Judicial), High Court of A.P., Hyderabad (for kind perusal) 7. One CC to Sri C. Praveen Kumar, Advocate (OPUC) 8. One CC to Sri K. Suresh Reddy, Advocate (OPUC) 9. One CC to Sri P. Bal Reddy, Advocate (OPUC) 10. One spare copy. Ksv HIGH COURT DSRVJ & KCBJ DATE: 08-01-2007 NOTE: POST AFTER FOUR WEEKS ORDER CRL.A. NO. 999 & 1026 OF 2006 DIRECTION