This revision challenges the trial court's order holding the accused a juvenile based on a Medical Board report. The High Court dismissed the application, finding no illegality. Allowing the benefit of the six-month margin under Rule 11 of the Bihar Rules, the court concluded the accused was under 18 at the time of the offense.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Revision No.708 of 2017
=========================================================== Poshan Yadav, Son of Late Yugul Yadav, Resident of Village- Sherpur, Police Station- Sadar, District- Muzaffarpur.
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
.... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : For the Respondent/s :
=========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 11-10-2017
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
counsel for the State.
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.708 of 2017 dt.11-10-2017
2/4
the age of accused/O.P. No. 2, Renu Devi, would be 18 years and 04 months precisely, therefore, she cannot be considered a juvenile from the date of occurrence.
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.708 of 2017 dt.11-10-2017
3/4
the alleged occurrence is dated 22.07.2009. So her age at the relevant point of time would be approximately in between 18 years 03 months to 21 years 03 months. The procedure for determination of age of a juvenile has to be done as per Rule 11 of the Bihar Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2012.
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.708 of 2017 dt.11-10-2017
4/4
she becomes juvenile in view of assessment of age done by the Medical Board. Accordingly, this application stands dismissed.
(Arun Kumar, J)
Sujit/-
| AFR/NAFR | NAFR |
|---|---|
| CAV DATE | NA |
| UploadingDate | 09.11.2017 |
| Transmission Date |
09.11.2017 |
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the accused O.P. No.2 is a juvenile considering the six-month margin for age assessment under Rule 11 of the Bihar Juvenile Justice Rules, 2012
Whether the trial court committed any illegality in holding the accused a juvenile based on the Medical Board report
Whether the benefit of six months margin should be given to the lower side of age assessment when exact determination is not possible via radiology
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Poshan Yadav
Renu Devi
The State of Bihar
Arun Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
