Remanded

Rajesh Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC21 Mar 2018CRLR/1032/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the criminal revision holding that the Medical Board report stating the accused's age as 'more than 18-20 years' was too vague to determine juvenile status. The order was set aside and remitted for a fresh inquiry into the accused's exact age after recording the doctors' statements.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 21.2.2015 is set aside. The learned court below is directed to consider the matter afresh after recording the statements of the Medical Board doctors and giving time to both s

Rajesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 17

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1032 of 2015

¶3

Revisionist :- Rajesh Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- P.S. Pundir Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt.Advocate,Chandra Shekhar Kushwaha,V.P.Mishra

¶4

Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist Sri P.S. Pundir and from the side of opposite party no. 2 Sri Shekhar Kushwaha and learned A.G.A.

¶6

Learned counsel for the revisionist P.S. Pundir has filed rejoinder affidavit, the same is taken on record.

¶7

The order dated 21.2.2015 passed by the Additional Session Judge, Court No. 4, Saharanpur has been challenged in the present revision on a number of grounds, but during arguments learned counsel for the revisionist has confined his argument only to the point that the impugned order is erroneous because the report dated 17.1.2015 of the Medical Board mentions that the age of opposite party no. 2 was more than 18-20 years, is vague. It is contended that the said report could be interpreted to mean that the age of the opposite party no. 2 could be anything above 20 years also.

¶8

Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has also admitted that the said vagueness is there in the said report, which has not been got clarified from the doctors, who were members of the Medical Board by the learned court below and the court below proceeded to decide the age of the accused- opposite party no. 2 on the basis of that report.

¶9

Perused the impugned order.

¶10

The learned lower court has written in order dated 15.11.2014 passed by it that on the basis of educational certificates, it was not possible to determine the age of the accused-opposite party no. 2 and, hence, Medical Board was directed to be constituted. The said Medical Board has assessed the age of the opposite party no. 2-accused to be above 18-20 years on 17.1.2015 and, hence, on the said date, he could also be of 19 years of age or his age could also be above 21 years. Since the occurrence is of 25.11.2011 i.e. three years old, it would be held that on the basis of opinion expressed by Medical Board on the date of

¶11

occurrence i.e. on 25.11.2011, the age of the accused-opposite party no. 2 was less than 18 years and hence he was entitled to be declared a juvenile.

¶12

This Court is not in agreement with the view expressed by the learned lower court because it has omitted to observe that the Medical Board had submitted a vague report saying that the age of the accused-opposite party no. 2 was found to be more than 18-20 years on 17.1.2015 and not that it was found between 1820 years. Had the opinion been expressed by the Medical Board that the age of opposite party no. 2 was between 18-20 years or about 18-20 years, certainly a conclusion could have been drawn about the age of the accused- opposite party no. 2 in the light of interpretation made by the Hon'ble Apex Court that two years could be either added or subtracted on either side to determine the age in such a situation. In the present case, when the opinion of the Medical Board is that opposite party no. 2 was above 18-20 years, that would mean that he could be of any age above 20 years also and, hence, the said vagueness would adversely affect the case of the complainant side. Therefore, this revision deserves to be allowed and the impugned order dated 21.2.2015 deserves to be set aside and is, accordingly, set aside .

¶13

The court below is directed to consider the matter all afresh again after taking down the statements of doctors, who were part of the Medical Board in respect of fixing the exact age of accused- opposite party no. 2 and in case it comes to the conclusion that medical examination is required to be done again, the same may be ordered for getting the age of the accused-opposite party no. 2 determined, as accurately as possible.The opportunity of hearing shall also be given to both the sides. This exercise shall be completed by the court below within a period of two months from today.

¶14

Let a copy of this order be transmitted to the court below forthwith for compliance.

¶15

Order Date :- 21.3.2018 A.P. Pandey

Rajesh Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jitendra Alias Bhure and 2 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and 1 Ors.

Hasrat and 4 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Smt. Vidhyawati Vs State of U.P. and Others

Dhirendra Singh Vs State of U.P.

Narain Das Vs State of U.P.

Bhuri Singh Vs State of U.P.