Bombay High Court
Mukesh Jagdish Yadav vs The State Of Maharashtra on 20 September, 2016
Bench: V.K. Tahilramani
2. cri wp 2472-15.doc
RMA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2472 OF 2015
Mukesh Jagdish Yadav .. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent
...................
Appearances
Mr. Prosper D'Souza Advocate (appointed) for the Petitioner
Mr. Arfan Sait ig APP for the State
...................
CORAM : SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI &
MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ.
DATE : SEPTEMBER 20, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT [PER SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.] :
1. Heard both sides.
2. Rule. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith.
3. The petitioner is facing trial for the offence under
Sections 396, 397, 120-B of IPC. The said case is numbered
as Sessions Case No. 12 of 2011 which is pending before the
Sessions Court for Greater Mumbai, Borivali, Division at
jfoanz vkacsjdj 1 of 3
2. cri wp 2472-15.doc
Dindoshi, Goregaon (E), Mumbai. 13 witnesses have already
been examined in this case. The case of the petitioner is
that the incident occurred on 22.8.2010 and on that day, he
was a juvenile, hence, he should be given the benefit of the
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000
(for short, 'The Act').
4.
It is seen that the petitioner had preferred similar
prayer before the Sessions Court where his case is pending.
The Sessions Court by detail order dated 30.1.2013 rejected
the claim of the petitioner that he was a juvenile in conflict
with law on the date of the incident. The said order is taken
on record and marked X colly for identification. It is seen
that though the petitioner has claimed that his date of birth
is 5.3.1995, he has not produced any reliable document to
substantiate the same. Though sufficient opportunity was
given to the petitioner, he failed to adduce any evidence
regarding his date of birth and failed to produce either
matriculation certificate from the school or birth certificate
jfoanz vkacsjdj 2 of 3
2. cri wp 2472-15.doc
issued by Corporation / Municipal Authority / Panchayat. In
such case, the learned Sessions Judge referred the petitioner
for medical examination i.e ossification test. The ossification
test shows that the petitioner was above 21 years of age on
the date when the test was carried out on 4.12.2012. Thus,
even if benefit of margin was given to the petitioner, it
cannot be said that he was a juvenile in conflict with law on
the date of the incident.
ig We find that the order dated
30.1.2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is
a well reasoned order. It is just, reasonable and proper
order, hence, no case is made out for interference. Rule is
discharged.
5. The order be communicated to the petitioner who is
lodged in Thane Central Prison.
[ MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J ] [ SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J. ]
jfoanz vkacsjdj 3 of 3
