JUDGMENT (ORAL)

Dhirendra Mishra, J.— In compliance of the order dated 4.4.2008, learned II-Additional Sessions Judge has conducted enquiry for determining the age of appellant Kachharu @ Sushil, s/o Paras Ram, and submitted his report along with complete enquiry proceedings. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge has assessed the age of appellant on the date of incident i.e. 21.4.2001 as 17 years.

2. Objection has been filed on behalf of the State to the above report of the trial Court regarding finding on age of the appellant under Section 7A of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (in short “the Act, 2000”).

3. Mr. Ravindra Agrawal, learned counsel for the State, submits that the finding of the trial Court is based on evidence of father of the appellant, school admission register Article ‘A’ and report of the radiologist dated 3.7.2008. However, in the enquiry proceedings, the State was not afforded with an opportunity to cross-examine father of the accused and the witness, who has proved the school admission register. It has been further objected that the report of radiologist is not specific and it only says that the appellant was more than 17 years of ag