Allahabad High Court
Vishal Singh @ Pitarsan @ Vishal Kumar ... vs State Of Up And Another on 15 July, 2022
Author: Rajeev Misra
Bench: Rajeev Misra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD A.F.R. Reserved on: 16.5.2022 Delivered on: 15.7.2022 Court No. - 80 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 614 of 2021 Revisionist :- Vishal Singh @ Pitarsan @ Vishal Kumar Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Kirtikar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
1. Heard Mr. Kirtikar pandey, learned counsel for revisionist and learned A.G.A. for State.
2. Perused the record.
3. This criminal revision has been filed challenging judgement and order dated 27.1.2021, passed by Additional Sessions Judge/F.T.C II, Ballia, in Misc. Application Criminal No. Nil of 2019, dated 29.3.2019 (Paper No.3 Kha), whereby aforesaid application filed by accused Vishal Sigh @ Pitarsan @ Vishal Kumar Singh, claiming therein that he be declared juvenile on the date of occurrence i.e. 4.11.2017 has been rejected.
4. Present Criminal Revision came up for admission on 19.3.2021 and this Court passed the following order:
"Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned AGA for the State.
The present revision under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the revisionist against the order dated 27.1.2021, passed by A.S.J./F.T.C.-II, Ballia, in S.T. No. 54 of 2018 (State vs. Vishal) arising out of Case Crime No. 745 of 2017 under sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506, 304 IPC, Police Station Dokati, District Ballia whereby the application of the revisionist declaring himself to be juvenile, has been rejected.
The submission of counsel for the revisionist is that the procedure as prescribed under section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 has not been followed. He further argues that there is nothing on record to demonstrate that the matriculation certificate filed by the revisionist is forged one, in the alternative, even if the Court came to the said conclusion, the subsequent procedure as prescribed under section 94 should have been resorted which have not been done. Thus, the order suffers from material irregularity.
Matter requires consideration.
Issue notice to the opposite party no. 2 returnable at an early date.
Steps be taken to serve the opposite party no. 2 within two weeks.
The opposite party no. 2 shall file counter affidavit within four weeks. Rejoinder affidavit may be filed within two weeks thereafter.
Put up this matter as fresh on 28.4.2021.
Till the next date of listing, further proceedings in S.T. No. 54 of 2018 (State vs. Vishal) arising out of Case Crime No. 745 of 2017 under sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506, 304 IPC, Police Station Dokati, District Ballia shall remain stayed as against the revisionist only. "
5. Pursuant to above order dated 19.3.2021, office has submitted a report dated 16.6.2021, stating therein that as per report received from C.J.M, Ballia notice has been served upon opposite party-2, personally.
6. However, inspite of service of notice, no one has put in appearance on behalf of opposite party-2. Learned A.G.A. has filed a counter affidavit to which a rejoinder affidavit has also been filed by revisionist.
7. Counsel for the parties agreed that instant revision be decided finally at the stage of admission without calling for the record. Accordingly, with the consent of counsel for the parties and as provided under Rules of the Court, present criminal revision was heard and is now being disposed of finally at the admission stage, itself.
8. Record shows that in respect of an incident which is alleged to have occurred on 4.11.2017, a prompt F.I.R. dated 4.11.2017 was lodged by first informant/opposite party-2 Surya Dev Pandey and was registered as Case Crime No. 0745 of 2017 under sections 147, 148, 149, 324, 308, 323, 504, 506 IPC and section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, P.S. Dokati, District Ballia. In the aforesaid F.I.R, 12 persons namely, Vishal Singh @ Pitarsan, Vishal Singh @ Bua, Sonu Singh, Pawan Singh, Krishna Singh, Bhola Singh, Chandan Singh, Monu, Chotu, Ajeet Singh, Shivjogit Singh, Dharmendra Singh have been nominated as named accused.
9. Investigating Officer upon completion of investigation of concerned case crime number submitted the charge-sheet against accused including applicant. Concerned Magistrate took cognizance upon same. As offence complained of is triable by Court of Sessions, concerned Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Sessions. Resultantly, S.T. No. 54 of 2018 (State vs. Vishal), arising out of Case Crime No. 0745 of 2017, under sections 147, 148, 149, 324, 308, 323, 504, 506 IPC and section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, P.S. Dokati, District Ballia came to be registered, and now pending in the court of Additional Sessions Judge/F.T.C. II, Ballia.
10. Subsequently, revisionist filed an application dated 29.3.2019 (paper no. 3-kha) before Court below in terms of Section 9 Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (herein after referred to as act, 2015) praying therein that revisionist be declared a Juvenile as he was below 18 years of age on the date of occurrence i.e. 4.11.2017.
11. Aforesaid application was filed by revisionist on the ground that revisionist has passed his High School Examination, conducted by U.P. Board of High School and Intermediate Education from Kesari Balika Higher Secondary School, Shobha Chapra, District-Ballia in the year 2014. The date of birth of revisionist recorded in the certificate-cum-mark-sheet issued on 30.5.2014 by U.P. Board of High School and Intermediate Education in respect of aforesaid examination undertaken by revisionist is 17.12.2000. As such, revisionist was aged about 17 years 8 months and 16 days on the date of occurrence, which is 4.11.2017.
12. Claim of juvenility raised by revisionist was opposed by prosecution/first informant-opposite party-2. According to first informant-opposite party-2, revisionist was major on the date of occurrence i.e. 4.11.2017 as he was more than 18 years of age. Revisionist has passed his High School Examination conducted by U.P. Board of High School and Intermediate Education in the year 2016 with Roll No. 2312942. The date of birth of revisionist recorded in the mark-sheet, pertaining to above noted examination is 9.1.1999. As such, on the date of occurrence which is 4.11.2017 revisionist was aged about 18 years 10 months and 3 days.
13. In view of above noted two certificates/marksheets of revisionist, regarding his High School Examination before Court below, the Additional Sessions Judge/F.T.C. II, Ballia passed an order dated 22.9.2020, which reads as under:
"1. To declare this accused Vishal Singh alias Peterson this present application has been filed on his behalf but without assigning any particular provision of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000 or Juvenile Justice Act, 2015.
2. This Court has heard the submissions of both the rival sides on this application. As it appeared from the case file that during the proceeding of this particular application my learned Predecessor has conducted almost the entire proceeding. This Court is not in position to hold that either it was right or wrong but considering the law laid down in Ashwani Kumar Saxena Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2012) 9 SCC 750, in which it has been emphatically instructed to the Subordinate Courts to conduct inquiry regarding the determination of age of the person claiming minor and has said in a very strong words that in the process of such inquiry the process of trial by recording the testimonies of applicant/witness(s) etc., is prohibited. More or less very similar approach has been shown by the three Judges Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Abuzar Hossain alias Ghulam Hossain Vs. State of Bengal (2012) 10 SCC 489 and also in Prag Bhati Vs. State of U.P. (2016) 12 SCC 744 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in similar manner. However, while deciding this aforesaid two cases the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that there should be no strict pattern or manner to conduct inquiry to determine the age of a person claiming minor and in a very recent judgment in Criminal Appeal No. 108/19 Sanjeev Kumar Gupta Vs. State of U.P. and another the Hon'ble Supreme Court has again dealt with this aspect in a very detailed manner and has time and again referred the Ashwani Kumar Saxena case(supra).
3. Considering the above in a situation as it appears from the records that the entire focus of this Court presided over my learned Predecessor was to extract truth circumfenced with a particular certificate claiming as of matriculation by calling witnesses and for recording their evidence in respect of the said certificate. Keeping in mind the guiding light transmitted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ashwani Kumar Saxena case, this Court is not ready to go along with the process opted by his learned predecessor. This is on record that the matriculation certificate filed by the applicant is very aggressively opposed by the prosecution accompanied with victim's Advocate and the prosecution has vehemently raised question over the veracity of this certificate. Although the prosecution has filed a photocopy of a certificate of a person named as Peterson Ram and has claimed that this is very same person as of the accused claiming his name as Vishal Kumar Singh alias Peterson here this is very pertinent to note that everywhere in the case record Vishal Singh alias Peterson has been mentioned and nowhere in the record Vishal Kumar Singh alias Peterson noted and this is very well settled in Criminal Jurisprudence System name of the accused has utmost important value and even difference of one word in the name of the accused can create a very big difference as well as consequence. However, this Court has no intention to give place the photocopy of the alleged certificate of a person namely Peterson Ram on the record to consider further but this is also truth this has already created serious doubt in the mind of this Court regarding veracity of the alleged matriculation certificate which was allegedly produced for establishing the accused as minor.
4. In aforesaid all the referred cases as well as in the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000(S.94) for determining the aged matriculation certificate has been given priority over other alternatives. 5. It has been held in Ashwani Kumar Saxena case(Supra) by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that in case the Court finds any such fabrication or has any sort of suspect over/in the matriculation certificate the Court may very much conduct an inquiry in this regard but scope of the inquiry as well as manner of the inquiry has not been given anywhere regarding checking the veracity of such certificate.
6. On the aforesaid analysis this Court keeps pending the application filed for declaration of the accused Juvenile pending and meanwhile this Court deems it fit to provide both the rival copies of the matriculation certificate as one in the name of Vishal Kumar Singh alias Peterson and other in the name of Vishal Ram alias Peterson for their verification and in this regard the SHO of the concerned Police Station i.e. Police Station Dokati, Ballia is directed to submit the report within a week. Further, this Court directs the Director U.P. Secondary Board, Lucknow to provide the records on that basis age of this alleged Vishal Kumar Singh was noted in the matriculation certificate as well as other ancillary papers to show this particular person has appeared in the matriculation examination on that stipulated date conducted by the U.P. Secondary Board, Lucknow within a week to this Court.
Ordered accordingly.
Notice be issued for the aforesaid purposes to the S.H.O. of the Police Station Dokati, Ballia related with this Sessions Trial No. 54/2018 (Case Crime No. 745/2017) and to the Director, U.P. Secondary Board, Lucknow."
14. Pursuant to above order dated 22.9.2020, no information/report was submitted by U.P. Secondary Education Board Lucknow, regarding the sanctity or genuineness of aforementioned certificates-cum-marksheet pertaining to the High School examinations undertaken by revisionist. However, two Police reports (other than a report contemplated under section 173 (2) Cr.P.C.) were submitted by Police of concerned Police Station. The first report was submitted on 15.10.2020, whereas the second report was submitted on 28.12.2020. In both the reports, it was reiterated that the date of birth of revisionist as mentioned in the High School Certificate is 17.2.2000. No conclusion was drawn by the Police regarding the authenticity/genuineness of the two certificates-cum-mark sheets of High School Examination undertaken by the revisionist in the year 2014 and 2016 respectively or on the date of birth of revisionist recorded therein.
15. In the light of above, Court below itself proceeded to hold an enquiry / to adjudicate the claim of juvenility raised by revisionist.
16. On behalf of revisionist, reliance was placed upon three documents i.e. letter dated 5.4.2020, of Principal, Keshri Balika Intermediate College Shobha Chapra, Ballia (Ext.Ka-1), photo copy of Sarniyan Panjika (Table Register), page no.0887368, verified by Principal, Kesari Balika Intermediate College, Sobha Chapra (Ext. Ka-2) and photo copy of Chhatra Patrawali Tatha Asttanantaran Praman Patra (Scholar Register & Transfer Certificate), Register No. 26384 verified by Principal (Ext. Ka-3). Apart from above mentioned documentary evidence, revisionist also adduced oral evidence by producing A.P.W.1 Arjun Yadav (Record Keeper of Kesari Balika Higher Secondary School, Shobha Chapra, District- Ballia) and A.P.W.2 Rita Devi (mother of revisionist).
17. In the light of above, as well as the two Police reports, Court below proceeded to evaluate the claim of juvenility raised by revisionist. Court below disbelieved the Police reports submitted by Police of Police Station Dokati, District Ballia as according to court below the two reports dated 15.10.2020 and 28.12.2020 are contradictory to each other. It shall be apt to reproduce the observations made by Court below itself in this regard, which is contained in the penultimate part of paragraph 18, and reads as under:
the concerned police has brazenly taken two stances in their two reports that in report dated 15.10.2020 the police speaks that it talked with the said Naveen Singh on telephone whereas in report dated 28.12.2020 the police says that Naveen Singh's old number is running switched off.
18. A.P.W.1 Arjun Yadav was disbelieved by Court below by observing as under:
" hence this person can only prove the fact of presence of such records in the school but cannot prove the contents therein noted in the documents which he brought before the Court"
19. A.P.W.2 Rita Devi, mother of revisionist was also disbelieved by Court below vide following observations contained in paragraph 16 of the impugned order:
"From the aforesaid testimonies of this APW2, mother of the applicant this only can be drawn out that this witness, however she was mother of the applicant was not able to tell the exact date of birth of her son because at the one hand she deposed that the applicant's date of birth was11 17.2.2000 but on the other hand she has admitted that she was an illiterate and she had memorized the age of (not the date of birth) the applicant through Pandit Ji. "
20. Having recorded aforesaid findings coupled with the fact that since it was revisionist who was claiming juvenility the burden to prove and establish the same was upon revisionist himself and revisionist having failed to do so, Court below by means of impugned judgement and order dated 27.1.2021 rejected the application (paper no.3ka) filed by revisionist claiming juvenility.
21. Thus feeling aggrieved by above judgement and order, revisionist has now approached this Court by means of present criminal revision.
22. Mr. Kirtikar Pandey, learned counsel for revisionist in challenge to the impugned order dated 27.1.2021 submits that order impugned in present criminal revision is manifestly illegal and without jurisdiction. He then submits that juvenility of an accused has to be decided as per section 94 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. Aforesaid section is procedural in nature and contains four sub-sections i.e. a,b,c,d which are preferential in nature. In case the first preference is not available, the Court can rely upon second preference and so on as the case may be. In the present case, revisionist has passed his High School Examination in the year 2014 and his date of birth recorded therein is 17.12.2000. The occurrence in question occurred on 4.11.2017. As such, applicant was aged about 17 years 8 months and 16 days on the date of alleged occurrence and therefore a juvenile. There is nothing on record to show that the certificate/mark-sheet of the High School Examination undertaken by revisionist in the year 2014 is forged or fictious. As such, Court below has erred in law in not relying upon the same. Case of revisionist is squarely covered under section 94(1) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.
23. It is also contended that claim of juvenility raised by revisionist was disputed by prosecution/first informant-opposite party-2. Reliance was placed upon certificate/mark-sheet of High School Examination of revisionist alleged to have been undertaken by revisionist in the year 2016 with Roll NO. 2312942 wherein name of revisionist was shown as Peterson Ram S/o Manoj Ram and the name of mother has been shown as Rita Devi and the date of birth of revisionist recorded therein is 1.1.1999. Except for this document, no other evidence was adduced by first informant-opposite party-2 to dispute the claim of juvenility raised by revisionist.
24. In the aforesaid circumstance, burden was upon first informant/opposite party-2 to establish the fact that date of birth of revisionist is 1.1.1999. Once revisionist had already passed his High School Examination in the year 2014, wherein his date of birth was recorded as 17.12.2000, there was no occassion before revisionist to retake the High School Examination showing his date of birth as 1.1.1999 which admittedly is to his disadvantage. In view of aforesaid facts and circumstance, court below ought to have accepted the claim of juvenility raised by revisionist. Even otherwise, Court below has disbelieved A.P.W.1 Arjun Yadav and A.P.W.2 Ritu Devi on wholly trivial grounds. As such, order impugned in present criminal revision is liable to be set-aside by this Court, and the application dated 29.3.2019 (Paper No. 3 Kha) filed by revisionist for declaring him a juvenile on the date of occurrence is liable to be allowed.
25. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. has opposed this revision. He submits that impugned order passed by Court below is perfectly just and legal. Findings recorded by Court below are definite and cogent findings. Same cannot be classified as illegal, perverse or erroneous. As such, same are not liable to be interfered with by this Court. Court below has exercised its jurisdiction with due diligence and not in casual and caviliar manner. Once two contradictory High School Certificates-cum-mark-sheets of revisionist were brought on record, court below rightly passed the order dated 22.9.2020, whereby the Police of Police Station-Dokati was directed to conduct an enquiry in the matter and further directions were issued to U.P. Secondary Education Board to submit a report regarding above. However, no report was submitted by U.P. Secondary Education Board in respect of certificate/marksheet of High School Examination undertaken by revisionist in the years 2014 and 2016, respectively. The Police reports submitted on 15.10.2020 and 28.12.2020 by Police of Police Station Dokati were rightly disbelieved as no attempt was made to verify the genuineness of the two certificate-cum-marksheet of High School examination undertaken by revisionist in the year 2014 and 2016 respectively or the date of birth of revisionist.
26. As such, exercise undertaken by Court below to adjudicate upon the claim of juvenility of revisionist is perfectly just and legal. Since revisionist was major on the date of occurrence, as such, no indulgence be granted by this Court in favour of revisionist.
27. Before proceeding to evaluate the rival submissions urged on behalf of the parties, it would be appropriate to refer the relevant provisions of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, as well as Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007.
28. Section 9 of Act 2015 provides for the procedure to be followed by a Magistrate who has not been empowered under this act. Same reads as under:
9. Procedure to be followed by a Magistrate who has not been empowered under this Act.-
(1) When a Magistrate, not empowered to exercise the powers of the Board under this Act is of the opinion that the person alleged to have committed the offence and brought before him is a child, he shall, without any delay, record such opinion and forward the child immediately along with the record of such proceedings to the Board having jurisdiction.
(2) In case a person alleged to have committed an offence claims before a court other than a Board, that the person is a child or was a child on the date of commission of the offence, or if the court itself is of the opinion that the person was a child on the date of commission of the offence, the said court shall make an inquiry, take such evidence as may be necessary (but not an affidavit) to determine the age of such person, and shall record a finding on the matter, stating the age of the person as nearly as may be:
(3) Provided that such a claim may be raised before any court and it shall be recognised at any stage, even after final disposal of the case, and such a claim shall be determined in accordance with the provisions contained in this Act and the rules made thereunder even if the person has ceased to be a child on or before the date of commencement of this Act.
(3) If the court finds that a person has committed an offence and was a child on the date of commission of such offence, it shall forward the child to the Board for passing appropriate orders and the sentence, if any, passed by the court shall be deemed to have no effect.
(4) In case a person under this section is required to be kept in protective custody, while the person's claim of being a child is being inquired into, such person may be placed, in the intervening period in a place of safety.
29. Section 94 of Act, 2015 provides for the procedure for determining the age of a Juvenile. Same is extracted herein under:
"Presumption and Determination of Age- (1) Where, it is obvious to the Committee or the Board, based on the appearance of the person brought before it under any of the provisions of this Act (other than for the purpose of giving evidence) that the said person is a child, the Committee or the Board shall record such observation stating the age of the child as nearly as may be and proceed with the inquiry under section 14 or section 36, as the case may be, without waiting for further confirmation of the age.
(2) In case, the Committee or the Board has reasonable grounds for doubt regarding whether the person brought before it is a child or not, the Committee or the Board, as the case may be, shall undertake the process of age determination, by seeking evidence by obtaining -
(i) the date of birth certificate from the school, or the matriculation or equivalent certificate from the concerned examination Board, if available; and in the absence thereof;
(ii) the birth certificate given by a corporation or a municipal authority or a panchayat;
(iii) and only in the absence of (i) and (ii) above, age shall be determined by an ossification test or any other latest medical age determination test conducted on the orders of the Committee or the Board:
Provided such age determination test conducted on the order of the Committee or the Board shall be completed within fifteen days from the date of such order.
(3) The age recorded by the Committee or the Board to be the age of person so brought before it shall, for the purpose of this Act, be deemed to be the true age of that person.
30. Rule 12 of the 2007 Rules provides the procedure to be followed in determining the age of a child in conflict with law. For ready reference same is reproduced herein under:
"Procedure to be followed in determination of Age. (1) In every case concerning a child or a juvenile in conflict with law, the court or the Board or as the case may be the Committee referred to in rule 19 of these rules shall determine the age of such juvenile or child or a juvenile in conflict with law within a period of thirty days from the date of making of the application for that purpose.
(2) The Court or the Board or as the case may be the Committee shall decide the juvenility or otherwise of the juvenile or the child or as the case may be the juvenile in conflict with law, prima facie on the basis of physical appearance or documents, if available, and send him to the observation home or in jail.
(3) In every case concerning a child or juvenile in conflict with law, the age determination inquiry shall be conducted by the court or the Board or, as the case may be, the Committee by seeking evidence by obtaining-
(a) (i) the matriculation or equivalent certificates, if available; and in the absence whereof;
(ii) the date of birth certificate from the school (other than a play school) first attended; and in the absence whereof;
(iii) the birth certificate given by a corporation or a municipal authority or a panchayat;
(b) and only in the absence of either (i), (ii) or (iii) of clause (a) above, the medical opinion will be sought from a duly constituted Medical Board, which will declare the age of the juvenile or child. In case exact assessment of the age cannot be done, the Court or the Board or, as the case may be, the Committee, for the reasons to be recorded by them, may, if considered necessary, give benefit to the child or juvenile by considering his/her age on lower side within the margin of one year.
and, while passing orders in such case shall, after taking into consideration such evidence as may be available, or the medical opinion, as the case may be, record a finding in respect of his age and either of the evidence specified in any of the clauses (a)(i), (ii), (iii) or in the absence whereof, clause (b) shall be the conclusive proof of he age as regards such child or Ihe juvenile in conflict with law.
(4) If the age of a juvenile or child or the juvenile in conflict with law is found to be below 18 years on the date of offence, on the basis of any of the conclusive proof specified in sub-rule (3), the Court or the Board or as the case may be the Committee shall in writing pass an order stating the age and declaring the status of juvenility or otherwise, for the purpose of the Act and these rules and a copy of the order shall be given to such juvenile or the person concerned.
(5) Save and except where, further inquiry or otherwise is required, inter alia, in terms of section 7A, section 64 of the Act and these rules, no further inquiry shall be conducted by the court or the Board after examining and obtaining the certificate or any other documentary proof referred to in sub-rule (3) of this rule.
(6) The provisions contained in this rule shall also apply to those disposed of cases, where the status of juvenility has not been determined in accordance with the provisions contained in sub-rule (3) and the Act, requiring dispensation of the sentence under the Act for passing appropriate order in the interest of the juvenile in conflict with law."
31. What shall be the procedure to be followed by Court upon an application filed by an accused claiming himself to be a juvenile came up for consideration in Sanjeev Kumar Gupta Vs. State of U.P. and another, (2019) 12 SCC 370. The Court observed as follows in paragraph 11:
" 11. Upon a claim being raised that an accused was a juvenile on the date of the commission of the offence, the court is required to make an enquiry, take evidence and to determine the age of the person. The court has to record a finding whether the person is a juvenile or a child, stating the age as nearly as may be. Rule 12(3) of the 2007 Rules contains a procedural provision governing the determination of age by the court or by the Board. Rule 12(3) stipulates thus:
32. The issue whether an enquiry can be conducted by the Court for declaring the age of an accused as well as the nature of such enquiry came up for consideration in Ashwani Kumar Saxena Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2012) 9 SCC 750. Following was observed by the Court in paragraphs 32 and 34:
"32. "Age determination inquiry" contemplated under Section 7-A of the Act read with Rule 12 of the 2007 Rules enables the court to seek evidence and in that process, the court can obtain the matriculation or equivalent certificates, if available. Only in the absence of any matriculation or equivalent certificates, the court needs to obtain the date of birth certificate from the school first attended other than a play school. Only in the absence of matriculation or equivalent certificate or the date of birth certificate from the school first attended, the court needs to obtain the birth certificate given by a corporation or a municipal authority or a panchayat (not an affidavit but certificates or documents). The question of obtaining medical opinion from a duly constituted Medical Board arises only if the abovementioned documents are unavailable. In case exact assessment of the age cannot be done, then the court, for reasons to be recorded, may, if considered necessary, give the benefit to the child or juvenile by considering his or her age on lower side within the margin of one year.
34. Age determination inquiry contemplated under the JJ Act and the 2007 Rules has nothing to do with an enquiry under other legislations, like entry in service, retirement, promotion, etc. There may be situations where the entry made in the matriculation or equivalent certificates, date of birth certificate from the school first attended and even the birth certificate given by a corporation or a municipal authority or a panchayat may not be correct. But court, Juvenile Justice Board or a committee functioning under the JJ Act is not expected to conduct such a roving enquiry and to go behind those certificates to examine the correctness of those documents, kept during the normal course of business. Only in cases where those documents or certificates are found to be fabricated or manipulated, the court, the Juvenile Justice Board or the committee need to go for medical report for age determination."
33. Subsequently, a three judges Bench in Abuzar Hossain @ Ghulam Hossasin Vs. State of West Bengal (2012) 10 SCC 489 also considered the aforesaid issue and concluded as follows in paragraphs 39 and 48:
" 39. Now, we summarise the position which is as under:
39.1. A claim of juvenility may be raised at any stage even after the final disposal of the case. It may be raised for the first time before this Court as well after the final disposal of the case. The delay in raising the claim of juvenility cannot be a ground for rejection of such claim. The claim of juvenility can be raised in appeal even if not pressed before the trial court and can be raised for the first time before this Court though not pressed before the trial court and in the appeal court.
39.2. For making a claim with regard to juvenility after conviction, the claimant must produce some material which may prima facie satisfy the court that an inquiry into the claim of juvenility is necessary. Initial burden has to be discharged by the person who claims juvenility.
39.3. As to what materials would prima facie satisfy the court and/or are sufficient for discharging the initial burden cannot be catalogued nor can it be laid down as to what weight should be given to a specific piece of evidence which may be sufficient to raise presumption of juvenility but the documents referred to in Rules 12(3)(a)(i) to (iii) shall definitely be sufficient for prima facie satisfaction of the court about the age of the delinquent necessitating further enquiry under Rule 12. The statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code is too tentative and may not by itself be sufficient ordinarily to justify or reject the claim of juvenility. The credibility and/or acceptability of the documents like the school leaving certificate or the voters' list, etc. obtained after conviction would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no hard-and-fast rule can be prescribed that they must be prima facie accepted or rejected. In Akbar Sheikh [(2009) 7 SCC 415 : (2009) 3 SCC (Cri) 431] and Pawan [(2009) 15 SCC 259 : (2010) 2 SCC (Cri) 522] these documents were not found prima facie credible while in Jitendra Singh [(2010) 13 SCC 523 : (2011) 1 SCC (Cri) 857] the documents viz. school leaving certificate, marksheet and the medical report were treated sufficient for directing an inquiry and verification of the appellant's age. If such documents prima facie inspire confidence of the court, the court may act upon such documents for the purposes of Section 7-A and order an enquiry for determination of the age of the delinquent.
39.4. An affidavit of the claimant or any of the parents or a sibling or a relative in support of the claim of juvenility raised for the first time in appeal or revision or before this Court during the pendency of the matter or after disposal of the case shall not be sufficient justifying an enquiry to determine the age of such person unless the circumstances of the case are so glaring that satisfy the judicial conscience of the court to order an enquiry into determination of the age of the delinquent.
39.5. The court where the plea of juvenility is raised for the first time should always be guided by the objectives of the 2000 Act and be alive to the position that the beneficent and salutary provisions contained in the 2000 Act are not defeated by the hypertechnical approach and the persons who are entitled to get benefits of the 2000 Act get such benefits. The courts should not be unnecessarily influenced by any general impression that in schools the parents/guardians understate the age of their wards by one or two years for future benefits or that age determination by medical examination is not very precise. The matter should be considered prima facie on the touchstone of preponderance of probability.
39.6. Claim of juvenility lacking in credibility or frivolous claim of juvenility or patently absurd or inherently improbable claim of juvenility must be rejected by the court at the threshold whenever raised.
34. Aforesaid judgements came to be considered in Prag Bhati Vs. State of U.P. (2016) 12 SCC 744 wherein a Bench of two judges concluded as follows in paragraph 36:
"36. It is settled position of law that if the matriculation or equivalent certificates are available and there is no other material to prove the correctness of date of birth, the date of birth mentioned in the matriculation certificate has to be treated as a conclusive proof of the date of birth of the accused. However, if there is any doubt or a contradictory stand is being taken by the accused which raises a doubt on the correctness of the date of birth then as laid down by this Court in Abuzar Hossain[Abuzar Hossainv.State of W.B., (2012) 10 SCC 489 : (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 83] , an enquiry for determination of the age of the accused is permissible which has been done in the present case."
35. In Sanjeev Kumar Gupta Vs. State of U.P. and another (2019) 12 SCC 370, the Bench took notice of above mentioned judgements and delianted its view in paragraph 15 in following words:
" 15. The above decision in Abuzar Hossain [Abuzar Hossain v. State of W.B., (2012) 10 SCC 489 : (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 83] was rendered on 10-10-2012. Though the earlier decision in Ashwani Kumar Saxena [Ashwani Kumar Saxena v. State of M.P., (2012) 9 SCC 750 : (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 594] was not cited before the Court, it appears from the above extract that the three-Judge Bench observed that the credibility and acceptability of the documents, including the school leaving certificate, would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no hard-and-fast rule as such could be laid down. Concurring with the judgment of R.M. Lodha, J., T.S. Thakur, J. (as the learned Chief Justice then was) observed that directing an inquiry is not the same thing as declaring the accused to be a juvenile. In the former the court simply records a prima facie conclusion while in the latter a declaration is made on the basis of evidence. Hence the approach at the stage of directing the inquiry has to be more liberal : (Abuzar Hossain case[Abuzar Hossain v. State of W.B., (2012) 10 SCC 489 : (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 83] , SCC pp. 513-14, para 48)
36. It is thus apparent that the scheme provided for in Section 94 of Act, 2015 contemplates preferential provisions on the basis of which the age of an accused who is in conflict with law is to be determined by the Court or the Board as the case may be. It may further be noted that the enquiry undertaken in pursuit of aforesaid exercise is different from declaring the accused as a juvenile. Observations contained in paragraph 15 of the judgement in Sanjeev Kumar Gupta (Supra) leave no room of doubt or ambiguity, in this regard.
37. When the case in hand is examined in the light of the provisions contained in Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 and the case law noted above, the inescapable conclusion is that by virtue of section 9 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, the Court before whom the matter is pending and the claim of juvenility is raised by an accused then such Court is competent to make an enquiry, take such evidence as may be necessary excluding an affidavit and thereafter record a finding on the matter stating the age of person as nearly as may be. As such, the order impugned in present criminal revision cannot be faulted on the ground that Court below had no jurisdiction in the matter.
38. This leads to the second issue involved in this case i.e. whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the enquiry undertaken to determine the date of birth of revisionist is judicious or is arbitrary i.e. in ignorance of the law and material on record. It is established from record that claim of juvenility raised by revisionist was based upon the Certificate-cum-marksheet of High School Examination undertaken by revisionist in the year 2014. The date of birth of revisionist recorded therein is 17.12.2000. Since the occurrence took place on 4.11.2017, the age of revisionist on the date of occurrence as per aforesaid document was 17 years 8 months and 16 days.
39. However, aforesaid claim raised by revisionist was opposed by first informant-opposite party-2. Reliance was placed upon another certificate-cum mark-sheet of High School Examination undertaken by revisionist in the year 2016 with Roll No. 2312942, wherein the name of father of revisionist was mentioned as Manoj Ram and that of the mother as Rita Devi. As per aforesaid document, the date of birth of revisionist was 1.1.1999 and therefore, revisionist was aged about 18 years 10 months and 3 days on the date of occurrence.
40. Since there were two conflicting certificates cum mark-sheets of High School Examination undertaken by petitioner in the year 2014 and 2016 respectively, court below rightly passed the order dated 22.9.2020, whereby a direction was issued to the U.P. Board of Secondary Education Lucknow to submit a report regarding above. Direction was also issued to the Police of Police Station Dokati to submit a report regarding date of birth of revisionist.
41. However, in compliance of aforesaid order, no report was submitted by U.P. Secondary Education Board Lucknow. Police of Police Station Dokati, submitted two reports on 15.10.2020 and 28.12.2020 respectively, wherein it was reiterated that the date of birth of revisionist is 17.12.2000.
42. In view of above, the enquiry undertaken by Court below to determine the age of revisionist cannot be faulted with. Court below was well within its jurisdiction to itself enquire about the age of revisionist, itself.
43. This leads to the last issue involved in present case i.e. whether inspite of the High School Certificate of revisionist available on record, Court below could have proceeded to undertake an enquiry to adjudicate upon the age of revisionist and secondly whether the conclusion drawn by Court below is illegal, perverse or erroneous.
44. A similar issue came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in Sanjeev Kumar Gupta (Supra) wherein inspite of the High School Certificate of accused being available yet Court proceeded to determine the age of accused as per the provisions of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. Court referred to the earlier judgement of Supreme Court on the issue. Strong reliance was placed upon the two judges Bench judgement in Parag Bhati (Supra) and on basis thereof Court proceeded to evaluate the claim of juvenility raised by accused therein. It is thus apparent that irrespective of the fact that High School Certificate of an accused being available on record, yet in a given set of facts and circumstances particularly, when a doubt is raised regarding the date of birth recorded therein, Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to undertake an enquiry for deciding the age of an accused. In the light of above, the submission urged by learned counsel for revisionist that since the Certificate-cum-mark-sheet of High School Examination undertaken by revisionist was available on record, which was not found to be forged or fictitious then Court below had no jurisdiction to undertake an enquiry for adjudicating the date of birth of revisionist, is wholly misconceived.
45. From the record it is apparent that what is in dispute is the date of birth recorded in the certificate cum mark-sheet of the High School Examination undertaken by revisionist in the year 2014 and 2016, respectively and not the fact as to whether revisionist has passed the High School Examination or not. Therefore, by virtue of aforesaid judgement, court below was well within its jurisdiction to hold an enquiry for adjudicating the age of revisionist to find out whether revisionist was a juvenile on the date of occurrence or not.
46. As already noted above, oral evidence adduced by revisionist in support of his claim was disbelieved by Court below. This Court has itself examined the deposition of the two witnesses namely, A.P.W.1 Arjun Yadav and A.P.W.2 Ritu Devi and does not find any error in the conclusion drawn by court below for disbelieving aforesaid witnesses.
47. With regard to the documentary evidence adduced on behalf of revisionist in proof of his juvenility, the Court finds that no connecting evidence was laid by revisionist in support of his claim. Since the Certificate-cum-mark-sheet of High School Examination undertaken by revisionist in the year 2014 was disputed, burden fell upon revisionist himself to lead cogent and reliable connecting evidence in support of his claim. No attempt was made by revisionist to establish that consistently his date of birth has been recorded as 17.12.2000. On what basis, aforesaid date was mentioned in the High School Certificate has also not been disclosed nor any evidence has been led in this regard. Resultantly, no illegality has been committed by Court below in rejecting the claim of juvenility raised by revisionist.
48. There is another aspect of the matter which also needs to be noticed. In the present case, parties knew each others case and led evidence. No attempt was made by revisionist to adduce such evidence, which would establish his date of birth as 17.12.2000. The mark-sheet/High School certificate of revisionist relied upon by the prosecution wherein the date of birth of revisionist is mentioned as 09.01.1999, could not be disputed in the light of evidence, if any, adduced by revisionist. There is one more aspect of the matter. The principal of the Institution was not discarded as there was no such evidence adduced by revisionist. No evidence was led by revisionist to corroborate the entry regarding his date of birth as 17.12.2000 occurring in the High School certificate. At this stage, the observations made by the Apex Court in paragraph-28 of the judgement in Babloo Pasi vs. State of Jharkhand and Another, 2008 (13) SCC 133 become relevant. Accordingly, same is extracted herein under:-
"28. It is trite that to render a document admissible under Section 35, three conditions have to be satisfied, namely: (i) entry that is relied on must be one in a public or other official book, register or record; (ii) it must be an entry stating a fact in issue or a relevant fact, and (iii) it must be made by a public servant in discharge of his official duties, or in performance of his duty especially enjoined by law. An entry relating to date of birth made in the school register is relevant and admissible under Section 35 of the Act but the entry regarding the age of a person in a school register is of not much evidentiary value to prove the age of the person in the absence of the material on which the age was recorded."
49. Way back in the year 1988, the Apex Court dealt with the issue as to how an entry occurring in school record is to be proved. Following was observed in paragraph-14 of the judgement in Birad Mal Singhvi vs. Anand Purohit, AIR 1988 SC 1796.
"14. We would now consider the evidence produced by the respondent on the question of age of Hukmi Chand and Suraj Prakash Joshi. The respondent examined Anantram Sharma PW 3 and Kailash Chandra Taparia PW5. Anantram sharma PW 3 has been the Principal of New Government Higher Secondary School, Jodhpur since 1984. On the basis of the scholar's register he stated before the High Court that Hukmi Chand joined school on 24.6. 1972 in 9th class and his date of birth as mentioned in scholar's register was 13.6.1956. He made this statement on the basis of the entries contained in the scholar's register Ex. 8. He admitted that entries in the scholar's register are made on the basis of the entries contained in the admission form. He could not produce the admission form in original or its copy. He stated that Hukmi Chand was admitted in 9th class on the basis of transfer certificate issued by the Government Middle School, Palasni from where he had passed 8th standard. He proved the signature of Satya Narain Mathur the then Principal who had issued the copy of the scholar's register Ex. 8. Satya Narain Mathur was admittedly alive but he was not examined to show as to on what basis he had mentioned the date of birth of Hukmi Chand in Ex. 8. The evidence of Anantram Sharma merely proved that Ex. 8 was a copy of entries in scholar's register. His testimony does not show as to on what basis the entry relating to date of birth of Hukmi Chand was made in the scholar's register. Kailash Chandra Taparia PW 5 was Deputy Director (Examination) Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan, he produced the counter foil of Secondary Education Certificate of Hukmi Chand Bhandari. a copy of which has been filed as Ex. 9. He also proved the tabulation record of the Secondary School Examination 1974, a copy of which has been filed as Ex. 10. In both these documents Hukmi Chand's date of birth was recorded as 13.6.1956. Kailash Chandra Taparia further proved Ex. 11 which is the copy of the tabulation record of Secondary School Examination of 1977 relating to SuraJ Prakash Joshi. In that document the date of birth of Suraj Prakash Joshi was recorded 11.3.1959 Kailash Chandra Taparia stated that date of birth as mentioned in the counter foil of the certificates and in the tabulation form Ex. 12 was recorded on the basis of the date of birth mentioned by the candidate in the examination form. But the examination form or its copy was not produced before Court. In substance the statement of the aforesaid two witnesses merely prove that in the scholar's register as well as in the Secondary School examination records the date of birth of a certain Hukmi Chand was mentioned as 13.6.1956 and in the tabulation record of Secondary School Examination a certain suraj Prakash Joshi's date of birth was mentioned as 11.3.1959. No evidence was produced by the respondent to prove that the aforesaid documents related to Hukmi Chand and Suraj Prakash Joshi who had filed nomination nation papers. Neither the admission form nor the examination form on the basis of which the aforesaid entries relating to the date of birth of Hukmi Chand and Suraj Prakash Joshi were recorded was produced before the High Court. "No doubt, Exs. 8, 9. 10. 11 and 12 are relevant and admissible but these documents have no evidentiary value for purpose of proof of date of birth of Hukmi Chand and Suraj Prakash Joshi as the vital piece of evidence is missing, because no evidence was placed before the Court to show on whose information the date of birth of Hukmi Chand and the date of birth of Suraj Prakash Joshi were recorded in the aforesaid document. As already stated neither of the parents of the two candidates nor any other person having special knowledge about their date of birth was examined by the respondent to prove the date of birth as mentioned in the aforesaid documents. Parents or near relations having special knowledge are the best person to depose about the date of birth of a person. If entry regarding date of birth in the scholars register is made on the information given by parents or some one having special knowledge of the fact, the same would have probative value. The testimony of Anantram Sharma and Kailash Chandra Taparia merely prove the documents but the contents of those documents were not proved. The date of birth mentioned in the scholar's register has no evidentiary value unless the person who made the entry or who gave the date of birth is examined. The entry contained in the admission form or in the scholar register must be shown to be made on the basis of information given by the parents or a person having special knowledge about the date of birth of the person concerned. If the entry in the scholar's register regarding date of birth is made in the basis of information given by parents, the entry would have evidentiary value but if it is given by a stranger or by someone else who had no special means of knowledge of the date of birth, such an entry will have no evidentiary value." Merely because the documents Exs. 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 were proved, it does not mean that the contents of documents were also proved. Mere proof of the documents Exs. 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 would not tantamount to proof of all the contents or the correctness of date of birth stated in the documents. Since the truth of the fact, namely, the date of birth of Hukmi Chand and Suraj Prakash Joshi was in issue, mere proof of the documents as produced by the aforesaid two witnesses does not furnish evidence of the truth of the facts or contents of the documents. The truth or otherwise of the facts in issue, namely, the date of birth of the two candidates as mentioned in the documents could be proved by admissible evidence i.e. by the evidence of those persons who could vouch safe for the truth of the facts in issue. No evidence of any such kind was produced by the respondent to prove the truth of the facts. namely, the date of birth of Hukmi Chand and of Suraj Prakash Joshi. In the circumstances the dates of birth as mentioned in the aforesaid documents have no probative value and the dates of birth as mentioned therein could not be accepted."
50. This Court cannot loose site of the views expressed in Manoj @ Monu @ Vishal Chaudhary vs. State of Haryana and Another, 2022 SCC Online SC 185, wherein the Court delineated its views with regard to section 35 of the Evidence Act in paragraph-32 and 38 of the report, which reads as under:-
"32. Section 35 of the Evidence Act, 1872 is attracted both in civil and criminal proceedings. It contemplates that a register maintained in the ordinary course of business by a public servant in discharge of his official duty or by any other person in performance of a duty specially enjoined by the law of the country in which such register is kept would be a relevant fact. This Court in a judgement reported as Ravinder Singh Gorkhi v. State of U.P. held as under:-
'23. Section 35 of the Evidence Act would be attracted both in civil and criminal proceedings. The Evidence Act does not make any distinction between a civil proceeding and a criminal proceeding. Unless specifically provided for, in terms of Section 35 of the Evidence Act, the register maintained in the ordinary course of business by a public servant in the discharge of his official duty, or by any other person in performance of a duty specially enjoined by the law of the country in which, inter alia, such register is kept 18 (2006) 5 SCC 584 would be a relevant fact. Section 35, thus, requires the following conditions to be fulfilled before a document is held to be admissible thereunder: (i) it should be in the nature of the entry in any public or official register; (ii) it must state a fact in issue or relevant fact; (iii) entry must be made either by a public servant in the discharge of his official duty, or by any person in performance of a duty specially enjoined by the law of the country; and (iv) all persons concerned indisputably must have an access thereto.'
38. The appellant sought to rely upon juvenility only on the basis of school leaving record in his application filed under Section 7A of the 2000 Act. Such school record is not reliable and seems to be procured only to support the plea of juvenility. The appellant has not referred to date of birth certificate in his application as it was obtained subsequently. Needless to say, the plea of juvenility has to be raised in a bonafide and truthful manner. If the reliance is on a document to seek juvenility which is not reliable or dubious in nature, the appellant cannot be treated to be juvenile keeping in view that the Act is a beneficial legislation. As also held in Babloo Pasi, the provisions of the statute are to be interpreted liberally but the benefit cannot be granted to the appellant who has approached the Court with untruthful statement."
51. This Court is not unmindful of the fact that while adjudicating the claim of juvenility a liberal approach should be adopted and the benefit of doubt if any should be granted in favour of accused. At this stage, reference may also be made to the judgement of Apex Court in Rishipal Singh Solanki Vs. State of U.P. and Ors., 2021 SCC Online SC 1079 , wherein Court considered the entire gamut of case law on the point and ultimately delineated its views in paragraph 29, which reads as under:
"29. What emerges on a cumulative consideration of the aforesaid catena of judgments is as follows:
(i) A claim of juvenility may be raised at any stage of a criminal proceeding, even after a final disposal of the case. A delay in raising the claim of juvenility cannot be a ground for rejection of such claim. It can also be raised for the first time before this Court.
(ii) An application claiming juvenility could be made either before the Court or the JJ Board.
(iia) When the issue of juvenility arises before a Court, it would be Under Sub- section (2) and (3) of Section 9 of the JJ Act, 2015 but when a person is brought before a Committee or JJ Board, Section 94 of the JJ Act, 2015 applies.
(iib) If an application is filed before the Court claiming juvenility, the provision of Sub-section (2) of Section 94 of the JJ Act, 2015 would have to be applied or read along with Sub-section (2) of Section 9 so as to seek evidence for the purpose of recording a finding stating the age of the person as nearly as may be.
(iic) When an application claiming juvenility is made Under Section 94 of the JJ Act, 2015 before the JJ Board when the matter regarding the alleged commission of offence is pending before a Court, then the procedure contemplated Under Section 94 of the JJ Act, 2015 would apply. Under the said provision if the JJ Board has reasonable grounds for doubt regarding whether the person brought before it is a child or not, the Board shall undertake the process of age determination by seeking evidence and the age recorded by the JJ Board to be the age of the person so brought before it shall, for the purpose of the JJ Act, 2015, be deemed to be true age of that person. Hence the degree of proof required in such a proceeding before the JJ Board, when an application is filed seeking a claim of juvenility when the trial is before the concerned criminal court, is higher than when an inquiry is made by a court before which the case regarding the commission of the offence is pending (vide Section 9 of the JJ Act, 2015).
(iii) That when a claim for juvenility is raised, the burden is on the person raising the claim to satisfy the Court to discharge the initial burden. However, the documents mentioned in Rule 12(3)(a)(i), (ii), and (iii) of the JJ Rules 2007 made under the JJ Act, 2000 or Sub-section (2) of Section 94 of JJ Act, 2015, shall be sufficient for prima facie satisfaction of the Court. On the basis of the aforesaid documents a presumption of juvenility may be raised.
(iv) The said presumption is however not conclusive proof of the age of juvenility and the same may be rebutted by contra evidence let in by the opposite side.
(v) That the procedure of an inquiry by a Court is not the same thing as declaring the age of the person as a juvenile sought before the JJ Board when the case is pending for trial before the concerned criminal court. In case of an inquiry, the Court records a prima facie conclusion but when there is a determination of age as per Sub-section (2) of Section 94 of 2015 Act, a declaration is made on the basis of evidence. Also the age recorded by the JJ Board shall be deemed to be the true age of the person brought before it. Thus, the standard of proof in an inquiry is different from that required in a proceeding where the determination and declaration of the age of a person has to be made on the basis of evidence scrutinised and accepted only if worthy of such acceptance.
(vi) That it is neither feasible nor desirable to lay down an abstract formula to determine the age of a person. It has to be on the basis of the material on record and on appreciation of evidence adduced by the parties in each case.
(vii) This Court has observed that a hyper-technical approach should not be adopted when evidence is adduced on behalf of the Accused in support of the plea that he was a juvenile.
(viii) If two views are possible on the same evidence, the court should lean in favour of holding the Accused to be a juvenile in borderline cases. This is in order to ensure that the benefit of the JJ Act, 2015 is made applicable to the juvenile in conflict with law. At the same time, the Court should ensure that the JJ Act, 2015 is not misused by persons to escape punishment after having committed serious offences.
(ix) That when the determination of age is on the basis of evidence such as school records, it is necessary that the same would have to be considered as per Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act, inasmuch as any public or official document maintained in the discharge of official duty would have greater credibility than private documents.
(x) Any document which is in consonance with public documents, such as matriculation certificate, could be accepted by the Court or the JJ Board provided such public document is credible and authentic as per the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act viz., Section 35 and other provisions.
(xi) Ossification Test cannot be the sole criterion for age determination and a mechanical view regarding the age of a person cannot be adopted solely on the basis of medical opinion by radiological examination. Such evidence is not conclusive evidence but only a very useful guiding factor to be considered in the absence of documents mentioned in Section 94(2) of the JJ Act, 2015."
52. When the case in hand is examined in the light of aforesaid principles laid down regarding the parameters, in accordance with which the claim regarding juvenility has to be adjudicated the object and nature of the claim of juvenility raised by an accused, this Court does not find any good ground to interfere in this criminal revision. Revisionist has failed to discharge the initial burden as observed in Abuzar Hossain (Supra), and noted in sub-paragraph 39.2 of paragraph 28 in Rishipal Singh Solanki (Supra). The claim of revisionist does not appear to be bona fide either.
53. In view of above, revision fails and is liable to be dismissed.
54. It is accordingly dismissed.
55. Cost made easy.
Order Date :- 15.07.2022 Arshad