The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for credible evidence in age determination inquiries and the consequences of relying on fabricated documents in determining juvenility.

JUDGMENT

Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, J. - Leave granted.

2 The appeals arise from the judgments of a Single Judge of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh dated 22 August 2016 in Criminal Revision No 278 of 2016 and Misc Criminal Case No 5495 of 2016. The High Court, while allowing a revision against the decision of the 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Satna dated 21 December 2015 came to the conclusion that the first respondent was a juvenile on the date of the incident. We hold, for the reasons to follow, that the High Court has erred in its findings and that the plea of juvenility of the first respondent is based on fabricated documents.

3 On 24 July 2015, FIR No. 433/2015 was registered on the basis of information provided by the appellant at PS City Kotwali, Satna for the commission of offences punishable under sections 363, 366A, 376, 506, and 120B of the Indian Penal Code 1860¹["IPC"] and sections 3 and 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act 2012²["POCSO Act"]. The appellant, who was a minor at the time of commission of the offence, alleged that she had been subjected to gang rape by the first respondent and other persons. The alleged offence is stated to have taken place about three to four months prior to the registration of the FIR on 24 July 2015. During the course of the investigation, the first respondent was arrested along with other accused alleged to be involved in the commission of the offences.

4 On 6 August 2015, the first respondent was produced before the Court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Satna³["JMFC"]. The first respondent took the plea that he was a juvenile under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000⁴["2000 Act"] on the date of the alleged offence. The counsel appearing on his behalf filed an application for bail, together with a certificate purported to have been issued by the Madhyamik Siksha Mandal, Madhya Pradesh pertaining to the appearance of the first respondent at the high school examination. The certificate indicated that the date of birth of the first respondent was 30 January 1999.

5 The JMFC conducted an inquiry and found that the certificate produced by the first respondent was fabricated. Therefore, the JMFC directed the police to register FIR No. 292/2015 dated 20 August 2015 in PS Civil Lines, Satna under sections 193,465,466,468, and 471 of IPC against the first respondent for intentionally using fabricated documents in judicial proceedings.

6 The 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Satna was directed to conduct an inquiry by an order dated 4 September 2015 of the Sessions Judge. The 4th Additional Sessions Judge conducted an inquiry, during the course of which the statements of witnesses were recorded. An inquiry report dated 21 December 2015 was submitted to the Sessions Judge. The inquiry report arrived at a specific finding that:

(i) PW-1 Maya Singh, the mother of the first respondent, had stated that the first respondent had not appeared for any examination after class 9;

(ii) The forged matriculation mark sheet was produced on behalf of the accused at the stage of the remand;

(iii) The first school which was alleged to have been attended by the first respondent was being conducted by a relative;

(iv) The admission form was not available in the school and the month of the birth had been incorrectly recorded; and

(v) The extract from the birth register was found to be interpolated and there were no signatures of a competent officer on the corrections and overwriting.

7 Due to the non-availability of a document confirming the age of the first respondent, the 4th Additional Sessions Judge decided to seek a medical opinion in accordance with rule 12(3)(b) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007⁵[ "2007 Rules"]. Accordingly, the 4th Additional Sessions Judge sought the opinion of the District Medical Board, which examined the first respondent. The District Medical Board opined that the approximate age of the first respon