1. The petitioner has preferred this criminal revision petition under Section 102 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (for
short, “JJ Actâ€) claiming the following reliefs:
“It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that this revision petition may kindly be allowed and impugned order dated 02.05.2019 passed
by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Jodhpur District in Criminal Appeal No. 08/2019 as well as order dated 26.02.2019 passed by learned Juvenile
Justice Board, Jodhpur in Criminal Inquiry No. 16/2019 may kindly be quashed and set aside and the case may kindly be ordered to be committed to
the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Jodhpur for trial.â€
2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant/ respondent no.2 lodged a written report before the S.H.O., P.S. Matoda, District Jodhpur alleging
therein that his sister’s dead body was found in the tank constructed in NREGA and blood was oozing from her gentile. After investigation,
charge-sheet was filed. The Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Jodhpur after hearing the argument on preliminary assessment vide order
dated 26.2.2019 committed the case to the Children Court Special Judge, POCSO Act Cases, Jodhpur for trial under Section 18(3) of the JJ Act. The
petitioner challenged the order dated 26.2.2019 by filing an appeal which was also dismissed on 2.5.2019.
3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the specific statement of Dr.Saroj Kumar is that the mental age of the petitioner was 15 years 6 months and
the physical age was 16 years 6 months.
4. After hearing the arguments at Bar and perusing the record available on record, this Court does not find any reason to interfere in the impugned
orders as the brutality of the act of the petitioner certainly indicates that the stand taken by the learned Courts below is justified. No cause for
interference is made out. The judgment of Bombay High Court in Saurabh Jalinder Nangre and ors. vs. State of Maharashtra (Criminal Writ Petition
No.4044/2018) decided on 10.12.2018 cited by the counsel for the petitioner does not apply to the facts of the case as that case involved offence
under Section 307 IPC whereas the present case involves heinous offence under Sections 302, 376 IPC, etc.
5. In view of the above, the present revision petition, having no merits, is hereby dismissed.
6. Stay petition also stands dismissed accordingly.
