Partly allowed

Pawan Kumar Yadav v. Naresh Sahu and Anr.

Chhattisgarh HC11 Dec 2009CRMP/481/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court modified the order of Additional Sessions Judge directing the charge-sheet to be filed before the Juvenile Justice Board. The court set aside the finding on the age of the respondent and directed the Board to hold a detailed inquiry to establish the accused's age properly before deciding jurisdiction.

What did the court decide?

Founding relating to age of respondent set aside; Juvenile Justice Board directed to hold detailed inquiry on age and parties directed to appear on 13/1/2010.

Pawan Kumar Yadav Vs Naresh Sahu and Anr. — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Chhattisgarh HC (2009)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Criminal Misc. Petition No. 481 OF 2009»

¶2

PETITIONER

¶3

RESPONDENTS

¶4

Pawan Knmar Yadav, S/o Ramcshwar Yadav, aged about 32 years, R/o‘ Pachripara, Kurud District Dhamtari, (C,G.).

¶5

Versus (1) Narcsh Sahuv S/o Johat Ram Sahu, aged about 20 years, R/o Pachripara, Kurud, District Dhamtari (C.G.). (2) State of Chhattisgarh, through Station House O$ce1z Police Station—Kurud, District Dhamtan', (C.G.).

¶6

PETITION UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE.

¶7

(SB^{:Hon’bleMr.T.P.8harma,} J.)

¶8

Present: Shr'i Sunil Sahu, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Devershi Thakur, Advocate for the respondent NO. 1. Shri Qamarul Aziz, P.L. for the State/respondent NO. 2.

¶9

ORAL- ORDER

¶10

(Passed^on 1 1/ 12/2009)

¶11

This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Cn‘minal Procedure, 1973 (in^{short‘theCode’)} against the order dated 28/ 1/2009 passed^bythe Additional Sessions Judge, Dhamtari in Sessions trial No. 50/2008 whereby learned Addiu'onal Sessions Judge, Dhamtari has directed^‘the prosecution^{tomethechargesheet} against the respondent NO. 1 before the Juvenile Justice Board, Raipur on the ground that age of the respondent^NO. 1 appears below 18 years on the date of the commisSion of the oh‘ence.

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that only on the assumption that respondent No. 1 may be below the age of the 18 years Court below has directed the prosecution to hle charge sheet before the Juvenile Justice Board. The age of the accused in this case is material and there must be strong evidence to exclude every possibility of the age of the accused above 18 years and to ensure that age of the accused. on the

¶13

¶14

date of commission of the oEcnce was below 18 years, before passing such order or direch'on but Coult below has not examined the case on this aspect and themby committed an illegality.

¶15

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the petition^and submits that Court below has rightly passed the order - impugned in accordance with Sections 6 8n 7 of the Juvenile Justice (Care^and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, the only Juvenile Justice Board is empowered to deal with the matters relating to the juvenile means whose age is below 18 years on the date of commission of such r odence and if the commission of such odence the age of the accused was more than 18 years then the Juvenile Justice Board is not competent to try the oh'ence against such person and it excludes the jurisdiction to try such oEence, if any provisions gives the jurisdiction to try any kind of case or take out the jurisdiction to 11y such case then such should be proved^{strictlytoexcludeeverysuchadverse} possibility.

¶16

The order reveals that only on the basis of school entry document and the report of Radiologist, statement of the mother of the respondent N0. 1, Court below has opined that at the time of commission of oh‘ence the age of the respondent N0. 1 may be below 18 years, Court below has not inquired the matter in detail while passing such order parties'has not tiled the document relating to Kotwari entry or birth cei tillcate or the evidence that entry in school register is not relating to the respondent NO. 1 and is related to any other person and such other material necessary for conclusion. Order impugned is not sustainable under the law but Additional Sessions Judge, Dhamtari has directed to hle charge sheet before the Juvenile Justice Board, therefore the order is partly modified and dnding relating to the age of the respondent NO. 1 is hereby set aside. Juvenile Justice Board is directed to hold the detail inquiry

¶17

v7,

¶18

mlating to the age specially^to provide^{anopportunityofadducingthc} document of Kotwari entry, birth mgistcr, school entry mgistcr, other evidence necessaxy^{foranivingatadeEJite} @ding^mlatingtothe age^of " the respondent NO. 1. Parties are djmcted^{toappearbefomtheJuvenile} Justice Board, Raipur on 13/ 1/2010 for furtherinquity, peu'tion is disposed of accordingly.

Pawan Kumar Yadav v. Naresh Sahu and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pawan Kumar Yadav v. Naresh Sahu and Anr.

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

Smt.Munni Singh Vs Santosh Kumar Gupta

Om Prakash Jarora and Ors. Vs Ramesh Kumar Ahuja

Daulat Ram Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Narayan Ram Yadav and Anr. Vs Chatro Ram and Ors.

Ku.Amina Sheikh Vs Hiraman Verma and Anr.

N.K.Taunk and Others Vs Manik Mehta and Another