Kumar Vs. The State of Bihar and Anr  Insc 203 (19 February 2008)
Arijit Pasayat & P. Sathasivam
APPEAL NO. OF 2008 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.2892 of 2007) Dr. ARIJIT
Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a learned Single Judge of
the Patna High Court quashing the order passed by learned Additional District
Judge, Fast Track Court Vth, Shekhpura. By the said order the learned
Additional Sessions Judge held that respondent No.2-Munna Kumar was not
juvenile and, therefore, there was no need to refer his case to the Juvenile
Justice Board for ascertaining of his age and, then for trial. It was observed
by the High Court that the prayer was rejected only on the ground that two or
three witnesses were examined and though the accused was in possession of
School Leaving Certificate, mark sheet etc. to show that he was a juvenile, the
prayer could not have been rejected. The High Court in a very cryptic manner
observed that the application of the accused deserved to be allowed and
directed the court below to consider the accused as a juvenile and to proceed
Learned counsel for the informant submitted that the documents produced had
been analysed by the trial Court and it was categorically held that at the time
of framing charge on observation it was noticed that he was major without any
doubt. In the certificate filed his name was disclosed to be Priyatam Bihari
though all through his name was stated to be Munna Kumar. Learned Single Judge
of the High Court did not even consider as to how the conclusions of the trial
Court suffered from any infirmity. Merely referring to the stand of the accused
and even without analyzing the correctness or otherwise of the observations and
conclusions made by the trial Court he came to hold that the accused was a
the complainant was a party before the High Court but no notice was issued.
There is no appearance on behalf of respondent No.2-accused.
Learned counsel for the State supported the stand of the informant.
High Court has failed to notice several relevant factors. Firstly, at the time
of framing charges, the age of the accused was recorded as major. Similarly,
the difference in names in the documents has not been explained by the accused.
Further, as rightly contended by learned counsel for appellant, no discussion
has been made as to how the conclusions of the trial Court suffered from any
Finally, no notice was issued to the appellant before the mater was disposed
Above being the position, the impugned order of the High Court is set aside and
the matter is remitted to it to consider the matter afresh and pass a reasoned
order in accordance with law.
appeal is allowed.
Pages: 1 2