The determination of juvenility under the Juvenile Justice Act must adhere to the prescribed procedure for age determination enquiry, as established by relevant Supreme Court decisions.

Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Counsel for Opposite Party No. 2 and learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing on behalf of the State.

2. This criminal revIsion application has been filed, under Section 53 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, by the petitioner being aggrieved by an order, dated 24.4.2015, passed, by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Bettiah, in connection with Chanpatia Police Station Case No. 345 of 2013, whereby the Opposite Party No.2 has been declared to be a child in conflict with law.

3. The Opposite Party No. 2 is named in the First Information Report, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 376(2)(F), 302, 301 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 4, 5(M) and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012.

4. This is not in dispute that the said determination of juvenility of Opposite Party No. 2 is based on a report submitted by a Medical Board, constituted for the said purpose, in which the age of Opposite Party No. 2 has, been found to be 17 to 17½ years, as on the date of medical examination of Opposite Party No.2, Calculated on that basis, the age of Opposite Party No.2 has been held to be between 16 to 16½ years, as on the date of occurrence, i.e., 4.11.2013.

5. Assailing the impugned order, learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that while declaring Opposite Party No. 2 to be a juvenile, the learned Court below has failed to take into account crucial facts, including the evidence of the parents of Opposite Party No. 2 and cousin (sister) of Opposite Party No.2. He has further submitted that on first appearance, the age of Opposite Party No.2 was found to be 20 years by the doctor. He further submits that the said cousin of Opposite Party No.2 had disclosed in his deposition that Opposite Party No. 2 was one year older to her and on that basis, the learned Court below ought not to have held Opposite Party No.2 to be a juvenile. His further submission is that according to the statement of the father of Opposite Party No.2, he had studied up to Class-V and he was admitted in one K.P.M. School, Bettiah. According to him, the relevant document/register from the said School ought to have been obtained for ascertaining the age/juvenility of Opposite Party No.2.

6. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Opposite Party No.2, on the other hand, has submitted that there is no illegality in the order, which has been passed on report of the Medical Board, in the absence of any other document, as required under Rule 11 of the Bihar Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2012.

7. After having considered the rival' submissions, I am of the view that the. order impugned cannot be said to be illegal, requiring interference by this Court in revisional jurisdiction. I do not find much substance in the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner that since father of Opposite Party No. 2 (sic) ought not to have been declared a juvenile.

8. Reliance placed in this regard on a decision of the Supreme Court, in the case of Om Prakash vs. State of Rajasthan and Another, reported in (2012)5 SCC 201 [ : 2012(2) PLJR (SC)405], is of no avail. The paragrph 34 of the said decision, in the case of Om Prakash (supra), is, as a matter of fact, an answer to his submission, which reads thus:-

"34. The benefit of benevolent legislation under the Juvenile Justice Act obviously will offer protection to a genuine child accused/juvenile who does not put the court into any dilemma as to "'vilether he is a juvenile or not by adducing evidence in support of his plea of minority but in absence of the same, reliance placed merely on shaky evidence like the school admission register which is not proved or oral evidence based on conjectures leading to further ambiguity, cannot be relied upon in preference to the medical evidence for assessing the age of the accused."

9. He has placed reliance on paragraph 36 of the