ARUN KUMAR versus THE STATE OF BIHAR AND ANR.

Citation: [2008] 3 S.C.R. 51 · Decided: 19-02-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Case Allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2008J 3 S. C.R. 51 
ARUN KUMAR 
A 
v. 
THE STATE OF BIHAR AND ANR. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 347 of 2008) 
FEBRUARY 19, 2008 
B 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.] 
Trial: 
Juvenile trial - Sessions Judge held that accused was 
not juvenile- Rejected his application seeking triafby Juvenile c 
Justice Board - High Court allpwed the application - On 
appeal, held: High Court failed to notice that at the time of 
framing charges, age of accused was recorded as major -
Also difference in names in the documents produced by 
~ 
accused not explained by accused - High Court erred in D 
allowing the application without giving reasons as to how the 
conclusions of trial Court suffered from any infirmity - Matter. 
remitted to High Court for fresh consideration. 
The Additional Sessions Judge held that the accused-
E 
respondent No.2 was not juvenile and, therefore, there 
was no need to refer his case to the Juvenile Justice Board 
for ascertaining his age and, then for trial. High Court held 
--r 
that the school leaving certificate and the mark sheet 
produced by accused show that he was juvenile and 
F 
"' 
therefore his application should be allowed and directed· 
. 
the court below to consider the accused as a juvenile and 
to proceed accordingly. 
In appeal to this court, informant contended that the 
documents produced had been analysed by the trial Court G 
and it was categorically helCI that at the time of framing 
charge on observation it was noticed that he was major 
without any doubt; that name disclosed in the certificate 
filed was different; that Single Judge of the High Court 
51 
H 
52 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
. !200BJ 3 S.C.R. 
-.. 
A did not consider 11 to how the conclu1lon1 of the trlal 
Court suffered from any Infirmity and by merely referring 
to the stand of the accused and wlthout analyzing the 
correctne11 or otherwise of the ob1ervatlon1 and 
conclu1lon1 made by the trlal Court held that the accused 
B wa1 a juvenile. 
Allowing the appeal and remitting the matter to High 
Court, the Court 
HELD: The High Court ha1. failed to notice 1everal 
c relevant factor1. Flr1tly, at the time of framing charge1, 
the age of the accu1ed wa1 recorded 11 major. Slmllarly, 
the difference In name1 In the documentl ha1 not been 
explained by the accu1ed. Further no dl1cu11lon ha1 
been made 11 to how the conclu1lon1 of th• trial Court 
D 1uffered from any Infirmity. Flnally, no notice wa1 l11ued 
to tht appel11nt before the maUor Wll dllpOlld Of, 
[P1r11 5·7] [53·F, G; 54·AJ 
CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: CrlmlnalAppeal 
No. 347 of 2008 
E 
F:rom tho final Order dated 19. 1.2007 of tho High Court of 
Judicature 1t Patna In Crl. Mlac. No. 2ae212007. 
R1nJ1n Mukhorjoo and S.C. Gho1h for tho Appellant. 
..,. 
r 
M11nl1h 1<um1r, Gop1I Singh and L.1k1hmi R1m1n Singh 
for tho R11ponc:lont1. 
iho Judgmont of tho Court w11 dolivorod by 
Dr. Afl/UJIT PAIAYAT, J. 1, bOIVO gr1ntod, 
G 
2, Ch1llongo in thi1 1ppo11 i1 to tho ordor p111od by 11 
l@1rnoc:I Singllil Judgo oftho F11tn1 l=ligh Court qu11hing tho ordor 
p111od by lo1rnod Addition1I Oi1triot Judglil, F'11t ir1ok Court 
Vth, Shokhpur1, ~Y tho 11id ordor tho lo1rn@d Addition1I 
S111icm1 Judgo h@ld th1t ro1pondont No,2=Munn1 1<um1r w11 
l=l 
notjuvcinil@ 1nd, th@roforo, thoro w11 no nood to refer hi• 0111 
ARUN KUMAR v. THE STATE OF BIHAR AND ANR. 
[PASAYAT, J.] 
53 
to the Juvenile Justice Board for ascertaining of his age and, A 
then for trial. It was observed by the High Court that the prayer 
was rejected only on the ground that two or three witnesses were 
examined and though the accused was in possession of School 
Leaving Certificate, mark sheet etc. to show that he was a 
juvenile, the prayer could not have been rejected. The High Court B 
in a very cryptic manner observed that the application of the 
accused deserved to be allowed and directed the court below 
to consider the accused as a juvenile and to proceed 
accordingly. 
3. Learned counsel for the informant submitted that the C 
documents produced had been analysed by the trial Court and 
it was categorically held that at the time of framing charge on 
observation it was noticed that he was major without any doubt. 
In the certificate filed his name was disclosed to be Priyatam 
Bihari though all through his name was stated to be Munna D 
Kumar. Learned Single Judge of the High Court did not even 
consider as to how the conclusions of the trial Court suffered 
from any infirmity. Merely referring 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.