ANJANA PRAKASH, J.:–The Petitioner who is the Informant seeks revision of the order dated 10.01.2013 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 1 of 2012 arising out of S.T. No. 1486 of 2006 concerning Split up S.T. No. 1486B of 2006 passed by 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Naugachia, Bhagalpur by which he has declared the Opposite Party No. 2 a juvenile.

2. The case of the Petitioner was that on the date of occurrence the accused persons including the Opposite Party No. 2 committed the murder of the brother of the Informant on 29.12.2005. Charge-sheet was subsequently submitted on 22.03.2006 against all the four accused persons and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial. On 10.10.2007 charges were framed against the Opposite Party No. 2 and other accused whereafter 14 witnesses including Investigating Officer and Doctor were examined. On 24.05.2012 when the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was being recorded the Opposite Party No. 2 stated that he was 28 years of age. On the date fixed for argument the Court took up the matter of juvenility of the Opposite Party No. 2 on the basis of a Petition having been filed on 08.06.2012 basing his plea on one transfer certificate issued by Principal, Ra. Ku. H. Gandhi Madhya Vidyalay, Alang, Anchal Sabour, Bhagalpur.

3. Then an inquiry was conducted by the 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Naugachia himself where a number of persons including the mother of the Opposite Party No. 2 were examined. He, however, did not rely on the documents as proof of age and rejected the same. He, simulaneously, directed the Medical Board to conduct a medical examination of the Opposite Party No. 2 which held him to be between 25 to 30 years on the basis of the X-ray Report. The Court below corroborated the assessment of the Medical Board with the statement of the mother and then declared Opposite Party No. 2 a juvenile.

4. It has been submitted on behalf of the Petitioner that once the Court below had rejected the documents which were authentic the prayer of juvenility should have been refused and further Medical examination should not have been held. The further submission is that the evidence of the mother which has been relied upon by the Court below is not only in-conclusive but also vague which does not lend basis to the credence of age. Moreover, the wide range of 25 to 30 years given by the Medical Board is not fit to be relied upon.

5. On the other hand, Counsel for the Opposite Party No. 2 relies upon four decisions reported in (2009) 13 SCC 211 (Hari Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan and Anr), (2009) 6 SCC 681 (Ram Suresh Singh Vs. Prabhat Singh @ Chhotu Singh and Anr.), 2013 (1) PLJR SC 156 (Ashwani Kumar Saxena Vs. State of M.P.) and 2015(1) 432 (Durga Ram @ Gunga Vs. State of Rajasthan) which are being discussed below.

6. In (2009) 13 SCC 211, the Apex Court had held that wherever two views are possible the Court should take a liberal view in borderline cases which is a well-established principle of law.

7. In (2009) 6 SCC 681, the Apex Court had held that an error of two years on either side in determining the age is possible when ascertained by radiological examination and, hence, the lower or the upper age or overage which should be taken into consideration depending on the facts of the case.

8. In 2013(1) PLJR SC 156, the Apex Court held that when a duly constituted Medical Board had assessed the age the Court should give benefit of doubt considering age on lower side and a margin of one year. A Medical Board could be constituted when the documents were found fabricated and manipulated.

9. In 2015(1) PLJR 432 Paragraph 15 once again the Apex Court considered that the Medical Board comprising Professors of different departments must get respect and a juvenile may be entitled to benefit in terms of Rule 12(3)(b) of Juvenile Justice Act.

10. On going through the decisions cited by the Opposite Party No. 2, I find that even though the Apex Court has held in matters of juvenility liberal view be taken b

Click Here to Read the rest of this document