This criminal writ petition challenging the Sessions Court's finding that the petitioner was not a minor on the date of the offence was rejected by this Court without further inquiry into the age evaluation.
The petition is rejected.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
10 wp.2736.10
ndm
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2736 OF 2010
Upkarya Charnya Pawar. ... Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra. ... Respondent
None for the Petitioner.
Ms. S.V.Gajare, APP for the State.
CORAM : A.M. KHANWILKAR and P.D. KODE, JJ. DATE : 27th September, 2010.
P.C.
1 This petition is received through jail. The Petitioner asserts
that on the date of offence, he was a minor and a juvenile in conflict with law. This aspect has already been considered by the Sessions Court, Sangli while deciding Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 474 of 2009 vide judgment and order dated 23rd July, 2010. The Sessions Judge has adverted to two examination reports and on the basis of opinion contained therein, has rightly inferred that it is not possible to accede to the plea of the Petitioner that on the date of commission of offence, he was below 18 years of age. That finding of fact is founded on the opinion of the doctors. It is not the case of the Petitioner that the evaluation done
2
10 wp.2736.10
by two doctors was not proper or there is manifest error committed by them. In the circumstances, the question of acceding to the Petitioner’s request of reevaluation of his age at some other hospital does not arise. The petition is therefore, rejected.
2 Copy of this order be forwarded to the Petitioner who is in jail, forthwith.
[ P.D. KODE, J ] [ A.M. KHANWILKAR, J ]
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner's pre/offence age should be re-evaluated on the basis of his plea that he was below 18 years.
Upkarya Charnya Pawar
The State of Maharashtra
P.D. KODE
A.M. KHANWILKAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
