Dismissed

Mukesh Jagdish Yadav v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC20 Sept 2016WP/2472/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Bombay High Court rejected the petitioner's special writ petition seeking confirmation of his juvenile status. Dismissing the claim for lack of documented evidence and reliance on the medical ossification test showing him to be an adult, the Court discharged the rule and refused interference with the Sessions Court's order. Quality: thin

What did the court decide?

The rule was discharged and the petitioner's claim for juvenile status was rejected.

Mukesh Jagdish Yadav Vs the State of Maharashtra — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

2. cri wp 2472-15.doc

¶2

RMA

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2472 OF 2015

Mukesh Jagdish Yadav

.. Petitioner

Versus

The State of Maharashtra

¶9

.. Respondent

¶10

Appearances

¶11

Mr. Prosper D'Souza	Advocate (appointed) for the Petitioner
Mr. Arfan Sait	APP for the State

¶12

CORAM : SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI &

¶13

MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ. DATE : SEPTEMBER 20, 2016.

¶14

ORAL JUDGMENT [PER SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.] :

¶15

Heard both sides.

¶16

Rule. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith.

¶17

The petitioner is facing trial for the offence under

¶18

Sections 396, 397, 120-B of IPC. The said case is numbered as Sessions Case No. 12 of 2011 which is pending before the

¶19

Sessions Court for Greater Mumbai, Borivali, Division at

¶20

jfoanz vkacsjdj 1 of 3

¶21

2. cri wp 2472-15.doc

¶22

Dindoshi, Goregaon (E), Mumbai. 13 witnesses have already been examined in this case. The case of the petitioner is that the incident occurred on 22.8.2010 and on that day, he

¶23

was a juvenile, hence, he should be given the benefit of the

¶24

Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (for short, 'The Act').

¶25

4. It is seen that the petitioner had preferred similar

¶26

prayer before the Sessions Court where his case is pending. The Sessions Court by detail order dated 30.1.2013 rejected the claim of the petitioner that he was a juvenile in conflict with law on the date of the incident. The said order is taken on record and marked X colly for identification. It is seen that though the petitioner has claimed that his date of birth

¶27

is 5.3.1995, he has not produced any reliable document to substantiate the same. Though sufficient opportunity was given to the petitioner, he failed to adduce any evidence

¶28

regarding his date of birth and failed to produce either

¶29

matriculation certificate from the school or birth certificate

¶30

jfoanz vkacsjdj 2 of 3

¶31

2. cri wp 2472-15.doc

¶32

issued by Corporation / Municipal Authority / Panchayat. In such case, the learned Sessions Judge referred the petitioner for medical examination i.e ossification test. The ossification test shows that the petitioner was above 21 years of age on the date when the test was carried out on 4.12.2012. Thus, even if benefit of margin was given to the petitioner, it cannot be said that he was a juvenile in conflict with law on

¶33

the date of the incident. We find that the order dated 30.1.2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is a well reasoned order. It is just, reasonable and proper order, hence, no case is made out for interference. Rule is discharged.

¶34

The order be communicated to the petitioner who is

¶35

lodged in Thane Central Prison.

¶36

[ MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J ] [ SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J. ]

¶37

jfoanz vkacsjdj 3 of 3

Mukesh Jagdish Yadav v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mukesh Jagdish Yadav v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Abhijit Bharat Babar Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

High Courts on Its Own Motion Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ramesh Marutrao Patil Vs the Inspector General of Prison and Ors.

Pintu @ Laxman Sarjerao Londhe Vs the State of Maharashtra

Pintu @ Laxman Sarjerao Londhe Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sartaj Mumtaj Khan Pathan Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.