Important Point
When genuineness of entry of school admission register was doubted in an enquiry under Juvenile Justice Act, then only medical report could be the scientific basis for determination of age.

Judgment

Deoki Nandan Prasad, J.— This criminal revision is directed against the order dated 22-12-1999 whereby and whereunder the learned Additi-onal Sessions Judge, Palamau at Dal-tonganj dismissed Criminal Appeal No.100 of 1999 affirming the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate dated 30-8-1999 in connection with G.R. No. 426 of 1999 arising out of Palamau Sadar P.S. Case No. 121 of 1999 registered under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

2. The persecution case in brief as stated is that on 19-4-1999 at about 2 p.m. one boy came to the house of the informant and called Bachu Chacha. The informant, wife of the deceased, came out and enquired about the matter and thereafter the boy said that he had to take one cinema pass upon which the infor-mant told him that her husband was sleeping. Thereafter the boy went away and again at about 4.30 p.m. he came and gave a call. The informant opened the grill. On seeing him her husband (deceased) named him as Anuj and asked him to come in, but when the boy did not enter, her husband went out and brought him inside and asked the informant to prepare tea. There-after two more boys were demanded four cinema pass of which the infor-mant’s husband (deceased) asked

that they were only three and why they were demanded four. He asked informant to bring paper and pen for preparing pass and also to serve tea. After that when the informant came with pen and paper, she saw that one boy who was with Anuj fired at the informant’s husband, due to which her husband became injured and fell down and thereafter the boys started fleeing away says that the work has been done. On hearing the sound of firing and hulla of the informant, many persons came there and the injured was taken to hospital, but after sometime, the informant’s hus-band died.

3. The police investigated into the case and submitted charge-sheet against the petitioner and others.

4. The petitioner had filed an application for regular bail vide Cr. Misc. No. 4865 of 1999 (R) which was disposed of with direction to the Chief Judicial Magistrate Palamau at Daltonganj to hold inquiry in respect of the age of the petitioner. On the basis of which, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate held inquiry, witnesses were examined and docu-ments were also produced. After hearing both sides, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate passed the order dated 30-8-1999 holding that the petitioner is not a juvenile.

5. On being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, Palamau and in the appellate Court, two more witnesses were also examined and the learned Sessions Judge after hearing both sides and considering the evidence on record, dismissed the appeal by confirming the order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. Hence, this revision application.

6. Mr. A.S. Dayal, learned coun-sel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the learned court below committed error in dismissing the appeal as he has failed to consider the documents produced by the petitioner as regards to the age as the date of birth of the petitioner was 14-10-1983 and all the witnesses produced have supported the case of the petitioner and the Court below also did not consider the documents, viz. Transfer certificate, Admission Register and Horoscope which are evidently disclosed that the date of birth of the petitioner is 14-10-1983 while the occurrence took place on 19-4-1999, on which date the petiti-oner was below 16 years of age and, therefore, the petitioner was minor at the relevant time. It is also submitted that two witnesses were examined in the appellate Court and they had also proved the admission register showing that the date of birth men-tioned in the said Register is 14-10-1983 and as such the petitioner was minor.

7. The learned counsel appe-aring on behalf of the petitioner also relied upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of Rajinder Chandra