The authenticity of documentary evidence, such as birth certificates and school certificates, and conflicting evidence from medical reports, is crucial in determining juvenility under the Juvenile Justice Act.

R.N.Prasad, J.

1. The petitioner is an accused in Kadamkuan P.S. Case No. 574/98 for the offence under Section-302 of the Indian Penal Code. The date of occurrence is 5-9-1998. The petitioner claims to be juvenile on the date of occurrence and as such he is entitled to the benefits under the Juvenile Justice Act. The claim of the petitioner was disputed by the opposite party and as such an enquiry under Sec. 32 of the Juvenile Justice Act was conducted by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, a Juvenile Court and it came to a conclusion that the petitioner was above 16 years of age on the date of occurrence and he cannot be tried by Juvenile Court as claimed by the petitioner vide order dated 10-9- 1999. The said order was challenged in appeal by the petitioner. The appeal was dismissed vide order dated 5-10-1999 by the Sessions Judge, Patna and the finding of the Juvenile Court was affirmed. The petitioner has challenged the aforesaid two orders of the Juvenile Court and the Appellate Court in this revision application.

2. The claim of the petitioner was that he was born on 18-9-1992 in Central Calcutta Nursing Home, Calcutta and as such his age was 13 days less than 16 years on the date of occurrence. In support of his contention, the petitioner examined three witnesses, AW 1 Sunita Das, mother of the petitioner. AW 3 Arun Kumar Das, father of the petitioner. AW 2-R. Braunza/Office Assistant, Don Bosco Academy and also produced documents, i.e. Ext. 1, a certificate of ICSE, New Delhi, Ext. 1 I A. marks obtained in ICSE Examination, New Delhi. .Ext. 2 School register of Don Bosco Academy, Digha, Patna. Ext. 3 admission form filled up by office of Don Bosco Academy. Ext. 4 school leaving certificate of Don Bosco Academy, Patna. Ext. 5 birth certificate issued by Central Calcutta Nursing Home, Calcutta. Exts, 6 and 61 A, the affidavits sworn by the father and the mother of the petitioner respectively. On the other hand, opposite party examined two witnesses, namely, Dr. Devi Dutta Gupta, PW1. Head of the Department of Radiology and Md. Wasir Alam, PW 2, Head of the Department, Orthopaedic, P.M.C.H., Patna. They were members of the Medical Board constituted for ascertaining the age under the order of Juvenile- Court. Opposite party also brought on record the original X-ray plate, material Ext. 6, original X-ray plate of wrist joint of the petitioner, material Ext. 1/A and original X-ray plate of Pelvis, material Ext. 1/B, Radiological report, Ext. A, report of Medical Board regarding determination of age, Ext. A/l. The Juvenile Court considered the evidence on record and also the law and came to the conclusion that the petitioner is not a Juvenile and as such his claim for separate trial by Juvenile Court was rejected. The finding of the Juvenile Court was affirmed by the Appellate Court giving reason for the same. Thus, revision petition has been filed.

3. Obviously, the claim of the petitioner of being juvenile was based on Ext. 5 which was disputed by the opposite party which led to enquiry under Sec. 32 of the Juvenile Justice Act. Learned - Counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner was born at Calcutta on 189-1982. A birth certificate, Ext. 5 was issued by the Central Calcutta Nursing Home, Calcutta. The said date was mentioned in Exts. 1 to 4 and as such there was no occasion for doubting those documents. Admittedly, Ext. 5, birth certificate was issued from Central Calcutta Nursing Home, Calcutta, a private Nursing Home. AW-1 has admitted that she along with her husband was residing at Patna. The Courts below have come to a conclusion that no reasonable reason has been assigned as to under what circumstances. AW1 was taken to Calcutta and gave birth to the petitioner at Calcutta. Moreover, Ext. 5 was brought on the record and exhibited under protest while AW3 was being examined. The Courts below have stated that it was brought belatedly on the record. AW3 stated in his evidence that Ext. 5 has b