Jharkhand High Court
Pankaj Kumar Sethi vs The State Of Jharkhand on 28 July, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 929 of 2021
------
Pankaj Kumar Sethi, aged about 54 years, son of Gyanchand Sethi,
resident of Bank Colony, Tiril Road, Kokar, P.O. Kokar, P.S. Sadar,
District-Ranchi ... .... .... Petitioner
Versus
1.The State of Jharkhand
2. Vikash Turi, son of Gulab Turi @ Guddu Turi, resident of village
Barsondha, P.O. Petarbar, P.S. Petarwar, District-Bokaro, at present
languishing at Hotwar Central Jail, Hotwar, P.O. Hotwar, P.S. Hotwar, District-
Ranchi ... .... Opposite Parties
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
For the Petitioner : Mr. Bibhash Sinha, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Abhishek Singh, Advocate
For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Akhouri Anjani Kumar, Advocate
04/28.07.2021 Heard Mr. Bibhash Sinha, learned counsel for the
petitioner, Mr. Abhishek Singh learned counsel for the State and Mr.
Akhouri Anjani Kumar, learned counsel for the O.P. No.2.
2. This petition has been heard through Video
Conferencing in view of the guidelines of the High Court taking into
account the situation arising due to COVID-19 pandemic. None of the
parties have complained about any technical snag of audio-video and
with their consent this matter has been heard.
3. The present petition has been filed for quashing of order
dated 09.03.2021 passed by the learned A.J.C.-XVII, Ranchi in
Sessions Trial No. 471 of 2013 whereby petition of the prosecution
dated 12.02.2021 to call for medical report from RIMS, Ranchi for
second opinion is rejected, pending in the Court of learned Judicial
Commissioner,-XVII, Ranchi.
4. Petitioner is the informant of the case and the father of
the petitioner namely, Gyanchand Jain Sethi aged about 70 years has
been murdered , pursuant to which F.I.R. was lodged.
5. During course of investigation, Suraj Mahto @ Suraj
Gope, Vikash Turi-O.P. No. 2 and Madhu Oraon were arrested and on
the basis of their confession, the dead body of the deceased was
recovered on 21.03.2013 from forest near Ranchi-Gumla Highway.
6. The case is under the stage of final argument. On
11.02.2020, O.P. No. 2 has filed a petition claiming therein that his
date of birth is 15.03.1999 and the occurrence has taken place on
14.02.2013, therefore he claimed that at the time of alleged
occurrence, he was 13 years, 10 months and 27 days.
7. A rejoinder was filed on behalf of the prosecution on
13.02.2020. On the plea of juvenility of the opposite party no. 2, while
enquiry was going on and the evidence on behalf of the opposite
party no. 2 in support of his contention was being recorded, the trial
court called a report from the office of Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical
Officer, Ranchi vide court's letter no. 48-49 dated 20.02.2020. The
Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Ranchi vide letter no. 1545
dated 16.06.2020 submitted report assessing the age of the O.P. No. 2-
Vikash Turi as 24-25 years.
8. Mr. Bibhash Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that only in one line, Civil Surgeon has opined the age of the
O.P. No. 2 as 24-25 years meaning thereby that at the time of
occurrence, O.P. No. 2 was juvenile. He submits that there is no
indication in the report as to how Civil Surgeon came to the conclusion
that the age of O.P. No. 2 was 24-25 years. He submits that in that
view of the matter, the petitioner-informant was compelled to move
before this Court so that the second opinion may be taken from the
RIMS. To buttress his argument, learned counsel for the petitioner
relied upon judgment in the case of "Mukarrab Vs. State of U.P.",
reported in (2017) 2 SCC 210 wherein para 24 the Hon'ble Supreme
Court has considered the Parag Bhati V. State of U.P. as under:-
"24. In Criminal Appeal No. 486 of 2016 dated
12.05.2016, Parag Bhati V. State of U.P., after referring to
Abuzar Hossain case and other decisions of this Court,
this Court held as under:
"34. It is no doubt true that if there is a clear and
unambiguous case in favour of the juvenile accused
that he was a minor below the age of 18 years on
the date of the incident and the documentary
evidence at least prima facie proves the same, he
would be entitled to the special protection under
the JJ Act. But when an accused commits a grave
and heinous offence and thereafter attempts to
take statutory shelter under the guise of being a
minor, a causal or cavalier approach while recording
as to whether an accused is a juvenile or not
cannot be permitted as the courts are enjoined
upon to perform their duties with the object of
protecting the confidence of common man in the
institution entrusted with the administration of
justice.
35. The benefit of the principle of benevolent
legislation attached to the JJ Act would thus apply
to only such cases wherein the accused is held to
be a juvenile on the basis of at least prima facie
evidence regarding his minority as the benefit of
the possibilities of two views in regard to the age of
the alleged accused who is involved in grave and
serious offence which he committed and gave
effect to it in a well-planned manner reflecting this
maturity of mind rather than innocence indicating
that his plea of juvenility is more in the nature of a
shield to dodge or dupe the arms of law, cannot be
allowed to come to his rescue."
9. Pursuant to notice Mr. Akhouri Anjani Kumar, learned
counsel appeared on behalf of O.P. No. 2. He fairly submits that he
has got no objection, if the second opinion from the RIMS is taken.
However, he has anxiety that the trial may be delayed.
10. Mr. Abhishek Singh, learned counsel for the State has
also got no objection.
11. In view of the aforesaid facts and considering that the
report of the Civil Surgeon is cryptic one and does not disclose how
the age of O.P. No. 2 has been assessed as 24-25 years and also
considering the fair submission of learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2,
let the O.P. No. 2 be produced before the RIMS, Ranchi on or before
12.08.2021 and the Director, RIMS, Ranchi is directed to constitute a
Medical Board for assessing the age of the O.P. No. 2.
12. It is expected that Medical Report shall be submitted in
the Court below by the RIMS, Ranchi within three weeks from the date
13. Accordingly, impugned order dated 09.03.2021 passed in
Sessions Trial No. 471 of 2013 is quashed.
14. With the above observation and direction, Cr.M.P. No. 929
of 2021 stands disposed of. I.A., if any, stands disposed of.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Satyarthi/-
