IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1141 of 2010 SUNIL KUMAR SON OF VIDYANAND MAHTO RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- KANHAULI BARA TOLA LAXMINIA, P.S.- KANHAULI, DISTRICT- SITAMARHI Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR For the petitioner : Mr. Virendra Kumar, Advocate ----------- 2 09.08.2010 Heard both sides. Petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 28.4.2010 passed in Sessions Trial No. 324 of 2009 (State versus Sunil Kumar) whereby the application dated 9.4.2010 filed on his behalf seeking inquiry and declaration that the petitioner is juvenile within the meaning of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) has been considered and rejected. Background facts giving rise to the present application may be set out. Petitioner was made accused under Sections 376/511 of Indian Penal Code with an allegation that on the date of occurrence i.e. 22.2.2008, he along with one of his associates made an attempt to commit rape on the daughter of the informant who was sleeping up-stairs. Accordingly, the police conducted investigation and found the allegation to be true. Charge-sheet was submitted and cognizance was taken whereafter the matter was committed to the court of Sessions for trial. During the trial, three witnesses were examined including the victim. Thereafter an application was filed on 9.4.2010 for declaring him as a juvenile. Learned Trial Court has 2 considered the said application and rejected the same. Learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the sustainability of the order submits that application seeking such relief can be raised at any stage of the proceeding. It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned trial Court erred in law in not either transmitting the records to the Juvenile Justice Board for initiating an inquiry in terms of Section 7 of the Act and/or not allowing the said application after making an inquiry by the same Court. Learned A.P.P., on the other hand, supported the impugned order. I have considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner and perused the materials available on record. Learned trial court firstly informed himself of the ratio laid down by this Court in the case of Anil Yadav @ Bare Yadav versus State of Bihar since reported in 2007 (4) P.L.J.R. 479. It appears that this Court in the said judgment has warned the court in seisin of the trial where such issues are raised to keep a guard against unscrupulous applications filed on behalf of the accused for getting himself declared as juvenile on the basis of wrong/got up certificates. It has been laid down therein that the Court has to take into account all attending factors and thereafter pass appropriate orders on the application seeking such reliefs. It appears that three witnesses were examined at the trial. Victim Rubi Kumari was examined on 23.3.2010. She did not support 3 the prosecution case in her examination-in-chief. During her cross-examination, she split into tears and then confessed and disclosed/narrated all the happenings that had taken place on the date of occurrence. She candidly accepted that she had made the statement in her examination-in-chief about the compromise of the case only to save her prestige and status. Immediately, thereafter on 9.4.2010, present application was filed by the petitioner for declaring him as juvenile. Such claim was raised on the strength of a school certificate issued on 16.4.2009. Learned trial court has found that the petitioner had filed his application for bail on 21.5.2009 but no such claim was raised on his behalf. In fact on no earlier occasion, till examination of the victim, any such application was filed by the petitioner. Learned trial court has thus found and held that the present application was filed after obtaining an ante-dated certificate. He has also recorded his finding that prima facie from his physical appearance, he does not appear to be a juvenile. Having regard to these findings, learned trial court has come to the firm conclusion that the certificate filed by the petitioner was not genuine. Intention was mala fide i.e. to delay the trial and thereby to frustrate the cause of justice. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not made any submission with regard to the ratio laid down by this Court in the case of Anil Yadav @ Bare Yadav (Supra). This Court finds that learned trial court has not acted in any illegal manner in considering all relevant factors and thereby 4 coming to a conclusion that this was an unscrupulous attempt to get petitioner declared as juvenile which was raised only after having found that the victim had supported the prosecution case in course of her cross-examination. There is no merit in this application. It is accordingly dismissed. pkj ( Kishore K. Mandal, J. )