Judgment:
D.K. Sinha, J.
1. This Cr. Revision is directed against the order impugned dated 15.09.2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-II, Chatra in Sessions Trial No. 67 of 2006 by which the petitioner, who claimed to be juvenile was found about 18 years of age at the alleged date of occurrence in an enquiry conducted by the Trial Judge under Section 7A of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 and thereby rejected the claim of juvenility of the petitioner.
2. The petitioner was facing charge for the alleged offence under Sections 304B/201/34 of the Indian Penal Code allegedly committing dowry death of his wife.
3. The prosecution story in short was that there was allegation of demand of dowry by the petitioner and others by way of gold and T.V. etc. which was communicated to the father-informant when the deceased daughter visited her parental home. She was even driven out earlier that she would not be accepted or allowed to stay at matrimonial home unless the demanded articles were given to the accused. She returned back to her matrimonial home where a 'Panchayati' was convened to resolve the dispute but of no avail. The informant received information about missing of his daughter on 24.05.2005 and in spite of extensive search, she could not be located. The informant then learnt about the floating of a dead body in a well of her matrimonial home village. Upon such information he went there and found a dead body with the neck and waste tied with rope to whom he identified to be his daughter Yashoda Devi. There was allegation of committing dowry death of Yashoda Devi by the accused persons including the petitioner-husband.
4. After commitment of the case and on transfer when the record was received by the Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-II, Chatra the petitioner took the plea of his juvenility to which an enquiry was conducted under Section 7A of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 and upon enquiry his age was assessed above 18 years on the alleged date of occurrence, accordingly, his petition was dismissed.
5. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner assailed the impugned order submitting that the entire finding of the Trial Judge was based upon conjecture and surmises and upon speculation. The petitioner had produced the horoscope in support of his juvenility which was proved by the maker of the horoscope but the same could not be relied by the Court. The petitioner was produced before the Medical Board in the month of August, 2009 and the Medical Board assessed the age of the petitioner between 20 to 25 years indicating a huge margin of 5 years against the settled norms of plus minus 2 years but the learned Court to its own convenience took the age of the petitioner to be 25 years towards the higher side and held that the petitioner was above 18 years of age on the alleged date of occurrence which cannot be sustained under law. The fattier as well as the 'Purohit' who had prepared the horoscope were examined in course of enquiry and they were consistent in their evidence that the petitioner was minor below 18 years of age as he was married at the age of 14/15 years and he was only 17 1/2 years at the alleged date of occurrence but such plea of juvenility by the petitioner was not accepted and he was declared major by the Court without following the provisions of Rule 22(5) of Jharkhand Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2003, which postulated preferential option for determination of age of an accused claiming his juvenility. There was vast gap between 20 years and 25 years being the age determined by the Medical Board. If thus lower side of the age i.e. 20 years could be considered which was in favour of the petitioner in the month of August, 2009 the petitioner would have been only 16 years on 24.02.2005 which was the alleged date of occurrence. Admittedly, no school leaving certificate or admission register first attended by the petitioner could be produced in the Court but since different modes wore available for determination of age the learned Trial Judge dismissed the claim of juvenility of the petitioner on wrong notion which needs interference of this Court in revision by declaring the petitioner juvenile on 24.02.2005.
6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that the petitioner had claimed his juvenility on the ground of the horoscope that was produced on his behalf in course of enquiry under Section 7A of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act. 2000. In addition to that, the petitioner was produced before the Medical Board, which assessed the age of the petitioner to be between 20 to 25 years, i.e. a margin of 5 years in the month of August, 2009 whereas the alleged date of occurrence was 24.02.2005. I find that the Medical Board could not be able to make accurate assessment of the age of the petitioner and marginal error of one year was permissible under the Rules in deserving cases for the reasons to be recorded by such Medical Board. The horoscope that was produced on behalf of the petitioner could not be proved properly, hence there was no way out before the learned Additional Sessions Judge except relying upon the medical report. I find that though the father as well as the 'Purohit' of the petitioner were examined in course of enquiry but their statements could not convince the Trial Court for the reasons stated in the impugned order and I do not find any patent error in that.
7. In the given situation, the only scope that was left out before the Trial Judge was to determine the age of the petitioner on the basis of the report furnished by the Medical Board which assessed the age with the margin of 5 years between 20 to 25 years and I find that, the learned Trial Judge committed error by accepting the maximum age limit of 25 years instead of taking the age as assessed by the Medical Board on the average basis which could be 22 1/2 years. If the age of 22 1/2 years could be considered for determining the juvenility of the petitioner in the month of August, 2009, the petitioner had certainly completed 18 years of his age on the alleged date of occurrence on 24.02.2005 and therefore, I find that the petitioner was no longer a juvenile on the alleged date of occurrence.
8. There being no merit, this petition is dismissed.