[2008J 3 S. C.R. 51

ARUN KUMAR A

THE STATE OF BIHAR AND ANR. (Criminal Appeal No. 347 of 2008)

FEBRUARY 19, 2008 B

[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.]

Trial:

Juvenile trial - Sessions Judge held that accused was not juvenile- Rejected his application seeking triafby Juvenile c

Justice Board - High Court allpwed the application - On appeal, held: High Court failed to notice that at the time of framing charges, age of accused was recorded as major - Also difference in names in the documents produced by

~ accused not explained by accused - High Court erred in D allowing the application without giving reasons as to how the conclusions of trial Court suffered from any infirmity - Matter. remitted to High Court for fresh consideration.

The Additional Sessions Judge held that the accused- E respondent No.2 was not juvenile and, therefore, there was no need to refer his case to the Juvenile Justice Board for ascertaining his age and, then for trial. High Court held --r that the school leaving certificate and the mark sheet produced by accused show that he was juvenile and F "' therefore his application should be allowed and directed . the court below to consider the accused as a juvenile and to proceed accordingly.

In appeal to this court, informant contended that the documents produced had been analysed by the trial Court G and it was categorically helCI that at the time of framing charge on observation it was noticed that he was major without any doubt; that name disclosed in the certificate filed was different; that Single Judge of the High Court

51 H

-..

A did not consider 11 to how the conclu1lon1 of the trlal

Court suffered from any Infirmity and by merely referring to the stand of the accused and wlthout analyzing the correctne11 or otherwise of the ob1ervatlon1 and conclu1lon1 made by the trlal Court held that the accused B wa1 a juvenile.

Allowing the appeal and remitting the matter to High Court, the Court

HELD: The High Court ha1. failed to notice 1everal c relevant factor1. Flr1tly, at the time of framing charge1,

the age of the accu1ed wa1 recorded 11 major. Slmllarly, the difference In name1 In the documentl ha1 not been explained by the accu1ed. Further no dl1cu11lon ha1

been made 11 to how the conclu1lon1 of th• trial Court

D 1uffered from any Infirmity. Flnally, no notice wa1 l11ued

to tht appel11nt before the maUor Wll dllpOlld Of, [P1r11 5·7] [53F, G; 54AJ

CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: CrlmlnalAppeal No. 347 of 2008 E F:rom tho final Order dated 19. 1.2007 of tho High Court of Judicature 1t Patna In Crl. Mlac. No. 2ae212007.

R1nJ1n Mukhorjoo and S.C. Gho1h for tho Appellant.

..,. r

M11nl1h 1<um1r, Gop1I Singh and L.1k1hmi R1m1n Singh for tho R11ponc:lont1.

iho Judgmont of tho Court w11 dolivorod by

Dr. Afl/UJIT PAIAYAT, J. 1, bOIVO gr1ntod,

G 2, Ch1llongo in thi1 1ppo11 i1 to tho ordor p111od by 11 l@1rnoc:I Singllil Judgo oftho F11tn1 l=ligh Court qu11hing tho ordor p111od by lo1rnod Addition1I Oi1triot Judglil, F'11t ir1ok Court Vth, Shokhpur1, ~Y tho 11id ordor tho lo1rn@d Addition1I S111icm1 Judgo h@ld th1t ro1pondont No,2=Munn1 1<um1r w11

l=l notjuvcinil@ 1nd, th@roforo, thoro w11 no nood to refer hi• 0111

ARUN KUMAR v. THE STATE OF BIHAR AND ANR.

[PASAYAT, J.] 53

to the Juvenile Justice Board for ascertaining of his age and, A then for trial. It was observed by the High Court that the prayer was rejected only on the ground that two or three witnesses were examined and though the accused was in possession of School Leaving Certificate, mark sheet etc. to show that he was a juvenile, the prayer could not have been rejected. The High Court B in a very cryptic manner observed that the application of the accused deserved to be allowed and directed the court below to consider the accused as a juvenile and to proceed accordingly.

3. Learned counsel for the informant submitted that the C documents produced had been analysed by the trial Court and it was categorically held that at the time of framing charge on observation it was noticed that he was major without any doubt.

In the certificate filed his name was disclosed to be Priyatam Bihari though all through his name was stated to be Munna D Kumar. Learned Single Judge of the High Court did not even consider as to how the conclusions of the trial Court suffered from any infirmity. Merely referring to the stand of the accused and even without analyzing the correctness or otherwise of the observations and conclusions made by the trial Court he came E to hold that the accused was a juvenile. Additionally, the , complainant was a party before the High Court but no notice was issued. There is no appearance on behalf of respondent No.2-accused.

4. Learned counsel for the State supported the stand of F the informant.

5. The High Court has failed to notice several relevant factors. Firstly, at the time of framing charges, the age of the accused was recorded as major. Similarly, the difference in G names in the documents has not been explained by the accused.

6. Further, as rightly contended by learned counsel for appellant, no discussion has been made as to how the conclusions of the trial Court suffered from any infirmity.

7. Finally, no notice was issued to the appellant before the mater was disposed of. ,

8. Above being the position, the impugned order of the High Court is set aside and the matter is remitted to it to consider the matter afresh and pass a reasoned order in accordance 8 withlaw.

9. The appeal is allowed.

D.G.

Appeal allowed.