The present revision has been filed against the order dated 8.1.2014 passed by the Special Judge (Ayodhya Prakaran)/Additional District & Sessions Judge, Lucknow in Criminal Appeal No.244 of 2013, arising out of Case Crime No.625 of 2012, under Sections 302, 504/34 IPC, Police Station Gosainganj, District Lucknow.
The appeal was filed against the order dated 8.5.2013 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board on an application filed by the revisionist to declare him juvenile in conflict with law on the date of incident i.e. 20.12.2012. The Juvenile Justice Board vide its order dated 8.5.2013, held that the educational testimonials submitted by the revisionist were doubtful and appeared to be manufactured. The Juvenile Justice Board held that on the date of incident i.e. 20.12.2012, the revisionist was more than 18 years of age. Learned appellate court has re-considered the material and perused the record before the Juvenile Justice Board and on the basis of the record, has held that on the date of incident, the revisionist was more than 18 years of age and, therefore, it has affirmed the order passed by the Juvenile Justice Board.
The revisionist is an accused for a heinous offence under Sections 302 and 504/34 IPC.
In the record of the initial school of the revisionist, his date of birth is mentioned as 2.1.1992. The High School mark-sheet, in which the date of birth has been mentioned to be 10.7.1995, has not been believed inasmuch as no certificate was submitted by the revisionist of the High School. It was also said that it was a case of the revisionist before the Juvenile Justice Board that he studied from Class-II to Class-X in one school, where his date of birth has been mentioned as 10.7.1995. However, he concealed the initial schooling where his date of birth is recorded as 2.1.1992.
I have considered the order passed by the Juvenile Justice Board as well as the impugned order dated 8.1.2014 passed by the appellate court.
The Juvenile Justice Board as well as the appellate court after considering the documentary evidence, which was brought before them, have concurrently held that the revisionist was more than 18 years of age on the date of incident. This Court while sitting in revision, cannot re-appreciate the evidence, which has already been considered by the Juvenile Justice Board and the appellate court.
I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the impugned order dated 8.1.2014 passed by the appellate court.
The revision being without any merit and substance, is dismissed.
Order Date :- 26.11.2019 Rao/-
.
Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh, J.
Heard.
Reasons and facts stated in the affidavit filed along with the application are sufficient to condone the delay.
Application is allowed and the delay in filing the revision is condoned.
Order Date :- 26.11.2019 Rao/-(CMAnNo.44475 of 2014)