JUDGMENT Vinod Prasad, J.
1. Heard learned Counsel for the revisionist and the learned A.G.A.
2. The revisionist is aggrieved by an order-dated 20.11.2006 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 11, Bareilly in S.S.T. No. 313 of 2006, State v. Jugendra Singh and Ors. By the aforesaid order the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 11, Bareilly has rejected the prayer of the revisionist to be declared juvenile.
3. The fact of the case as is mentioned in the impugned order indicates that the revisionist is an accused of an offence of murder under Section 302 I.P.C. vide crime No. 1084 of 2005. At the time of his bail etc. no pleading of being juvenile was taken by the present revisionist. It was only when the trial was committed to the court of sessions and the charge was framed that the accused all of sudden sprang with the plea of being a juvenile. By the impugned order the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 11 Bareilly has held that according to the medical examination and the report of C.M.O. the revisionist is assessed to be 20 years of age. In the impugned order the trial court has held that the radiological age so determined by the C.M.O. brings out the correct age of the revisionist which is 20 years. The incident is alleged to have taken place on 14.10.2005. Consequently the accused was 19 years of age at the time of incident and therefore he is not entitled to the benefit of Juvenile Justice Act. The trial court further recorded a finding that the mother who was examined during the trial failed to bring on record any tangible and acceptable evidence regarding the date of birth of the revisionist on the basis of which his age was recorded in the school register. In view of the fact that the statement of the mother as well as documentary evidences were not sufficient and were of doubtful nature, that the medical examination of the revisionist was got conducted which brought the age of the revisionist to be 20 years. After making further discussion the trial court was of the opinion that the revisionist cannot be declared to be a juvenile.
4. In my view, the approach of the trial court does not suffer from any error of law for the simple reason that if the revisionist was a juvenile the plea could have been taken at the earlier stages. Those persons who are offenders under Section 302 I.P.C. aged about 20 or 21 years cannot be allowed to reap the benefit of law only because of the feet that there can be an error of two years in the radiological determination. Such an approach will not be only be hazardous to the society but give long rope to those murderous who are between the age of 20 and 21 years.
5. Learned Counsel for the revisionist relied upon the judgment reported in 2003 (46) ACC 382 Dal Chand (Juvenile) v. State of U.P. In the aforesaid case it has been held by this Court that school certificate may be considered to be an important piece of evidence. In the aforesaid case the Principal of the school was examined and it was on the basis of such a statement of Principal as well as of the mother that the age was determined in that case. The facts of that case are entirely distinguishable from the case of the present revisionist as he had failed to produce any cogent and reliable evidence for acceptance of his contentions. Learned Counsel for the revisionist also relied upon the judgment Rajinder Chandra v. State of Chhattishgarh and Anr.. The aforesaid judgment is of no help to the case of the revisionist. Juvenile Justice Act is meant for juvenile offenders. Needless to say that Juvenile Justice Act can not be allowed to be wielded as a weapon by an accused who is not a juvenile to reap the benefit specially in serious cases as the present one under Section 302 I.P.C. Further in that case there was no distinction between School leaving certificate and the radiologically determined age vide paragraph 6 of the aforesaid judgment. Learned Counsel for the revisionist also cited 2003 (46) ACC 709 Jagdish @ Kallu v. State of U.P. and Ors.. In the aforesaid judgment the Apex Court has taken a view that if two views are possible then view favourable to the accused should be preferred. In the present case two views were not possible as the documentary evidence led before the trial court was wholly insufficient and was a dicey piece of evidence. The radiologically determined age of 20 years was scientifically determined age and therefore, was rightly accepted by the trial court. The trial court committed no error in relying upon the radiologically determined age.
6. In view of the aforesaid discussions, this revision is dismissed.