1 did number disclose that he was a juvenile at any time during the investigation of the case or during the trial of other criminal cases for which he was being tried and that he has taken this plea for the first time to avoid the trial for the heinous crime and that the application of Respondent No.1 should be rejected.
The Respondent No.1 examined witnesses and produced documents in support of his claim that he was a juvenile.
Aggrieved, the Respondent No.1 filed S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.
The relevant facts very briefly are that on 11.07.2004 one Bhomaram lodged a companyplaint in Pratap Nagar Police Station, Jodhpur, against the Respondent No.1 and others alleging the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for short, the IPC along with other offences under the IPC.
The trial companyrt, after hearing the parties and companysidering the evidence, rejected the application of the Respondent No.1 by order dated 14.02.2006.
Before the charges companyld be framed in the case, an application was filed on behalf of Respondent No.1 under Section 49 of the Act, stating therein that the date of birth of Respondent No.1 was 05.10.1988 and, therefore, on 11.07.2004, when the offence is alleged to have been companymitted, the Respondent No.1 was less than 18 years of age and he was, thus, a juvenile and has to be tried separately from the other accused under the Act.
The trial companyrt, however, has taken numbere of the fact that AW1 in his cross examination companyld number say who had filled up the admission form and on what basis the date of birth of Respondent No.1 was written as 05.10.1988.
The State of Rajasthan did number produce any evidence.
The State of Rajasthan, in its reply, stated inter alia that the Respondent No.
The trial companyrt has further observed that AW1 has admitted that the scholars register Exhibit 2 was number in his handwriting and that he had never seen the boy whose name was mentioned in Exhibit 2.
AW1 has further stated that Exhibit 1 was the admission form in relation to Respondent No.1 in which the date of birth of Respondent No.1 was mentioned as 05.10.1988 and in this admission form the uncle of Respondent No.1 had put his signatures marked by the companyrt as Exhibit 1E to 1F and on the basis of this information in the admission form an entry was made in the scholars register Exhibit 2 that the date of birth of Respondent No.1 was 05.10.1988.
In the impugned order passed in revision, the High Court reversed the findings of the trial companyrt and held that even if Respondent No.1 had number raised a plea that he was a juvenile in other criminal cases or during the companyrse of investigation of the present criminal case, such a plea companyld be raised by him at any stage during the companyrse of trial and even at the appellate stage.
K. PATNAIK, J. Leave granted.
The appellant is the father of Prahalad Singh, who is alleged to have been murdered by the Respondent No.1, and he has filed this appeal against the order dated 18.08.2006 of the High Court of Rajasthan in S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.
A criminal case was registered and after investigation, the police filed chargesheet against inter alia the Respondent No.1 and the case was transferred by the Sessions Judge to the Special Judge, SC ST Prevention of Atrocities Cases, Jodhpur, for trial.
166 of 2006 in which the High Court has held that the Respondent No.1 was a juvenile on the date of companymission of the offence and has directed that the matter will be remitted for trial under the provisions of the Juvenile Justice Care and Protection of Children Act, 2000 for short, the Act .
