ORDER

1. Leave granted. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

2. The short and simple question that requires an answer in this appeal is whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the finding of the Sessions Judge, Sonbhadra, that the accused Respondent 2 was not a "juvenile" under the Juvenile Justice Act. The record reveals that in arriving at its above finding the Sessions Judge detailed and discussed the evidence, both oral and documentary, adduced in the enquiry he held pursuant to an earlier direction of the High Court to ascertain the age of Respondent 2 at the material time. The High Court set aside the above finding in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction with the following observation :

"It is undisputed that the date of birth mentioned in the student register is admissible in evidence (see Harpal Singh v. State of H. P. ((1981) 1 SCC 560 : 1981 SCC (Cri) 208 : 1981 Cri LJ 1)). Further in the judgment passed by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Bhoop Ram V. State of U.P. ((1989) 3 SCC 1 : 1989 SCC (Cri) 486 : AIR 1989 SC 1329) it has been stressed upon that where there is difference in date of birth between school certificate and medical certifica