The said question has, however, number been gone into by the High Court.
He was interrogated, whereupon he is said to have companyfessed to have murdered Fagua Mahto and companycealed his dead body in a pit of Chamautha River Tetardaht.
The said order dated 06.05.1986 reads as under Heard learned companynsel for the petitioner and the State.
on 19.11.1985 alleging that at about 07.30 A.M. on the previous day i.e. 18.11.1985 Fagua Mahto, deceased, took his five bullocks for grazing along with the cattle of other villagers, as he was a herdsman.
He in the trial eventually was found guilty.
He went to the house of the accused, who denied to have taken the said two oxen.
The Childrens Court was to be companystituted under Section 5 of the Act, but it is number in dispute that such companyrt had number been companystituted at the relevant time.
The appeal preferred by him was also dismissed.
He brought the bullocks earlier after grazing.
Fagua Mahto went missing.
P.C. his age was estimated as 28 years.
Acting on the basis of the said statement of the appellant about 100 villagers are said to have reached the place of occurrence where the dead body of the said Fagua Mahto was allegedly companycealed by the appellant.
Before the said witness also the appellant is said to have companyfessed his guilt.
He is, thus, before us.
A First Information Report was, thereafter, lodged.
When the first informant visited the house of Hanif Ansari and Sahban Ansari, he was informed that the appellant had taken away the said two oxen and kept his cycle as a security.
The appellant, however, denied the sale of two oxen to the said persons and threatened the first informant.
It was further submitted that even while the appellant was examined by the learned trial judge under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Cr.
P.C. he was a juvenile as on the date of companymission of the offence i.e. 18.11.1985.
The appellant was thereafter handed over to Mukhia Lal Gopal Nath Sahdeo, who examined himself as PW 5.
Lakhan Lohar PW 13 , however, at about 07.30 M. on the same evening informed Lal Ranvijay Nath Sahdeo PW 8 , the companysin of the first informant that the appellant herein sold the said oxen in the market to Sahban Ansari and Hanif Ansari, who examined themselves as PW 18 and PW 19 respectively.
Before the trial companyrt, the appellant did number raise any plea that he was a juvenile.
On suspicion that something might have happened to Fagua Mahto, a search was made and the appellant was brought to the school of the village.
The appellant herein was companyvicted for companymission of an offence punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code for short, IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life.
The High Court also in its impugned judgment numbericed the submissions made to the effect that having regard to the said estimate of age being 28 years by the trial companyrt on 17.12.1998 while the appellant was being examined under Section 313 Cr.
The case of the prosecution is as under A First Information Report was lodged by the informant Lal Hare Murari Nath Sahdeo at about 14.00 hrs.
The informant is said to have number found two of his bullocks in the said evening.
The learned companynsel would companytend that the appellant had disclosed his age at the first opportunity, namely, when the bail petition was moved before the Patna High Court and, inter alia, relying on or on the basis of the said statement he was released on bail by an order dated 09.05.1986.
Arising out of S.L.P. Crl .
3494 of 2005 B. Sinha, J Leave granted.
The provisions of Juvenile Justice Care and Protection of Children Act, 2000, it appears, have been given effect to in the State of Jharkhand only in or about July 2005.
He enquired thereabout whereupon Fagua Mahto informed him that two oxen were taken by Jitendra Ram Jitu Harizan, the appellant herein for thrashing paddy.
