JUDGMENT

Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

2. On 31.01.2020 after hearing learned counsel for the petitioner this Court passed the following order:-

"It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the Juvenile Justice Board as well as the learned appellate court failed to appreciate the actual import of Rule 12(3)(b) of the Juvenile Justice Rules, 2007. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that if the medical board had found the age of the petitioner in between 20-21 years on the date of examination and the Juvenile Justice Board itself was of the view that on the date of alleged occurrence the age of the petitioner would be in between 18-19 years, then following the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Darga Ram @ Gunga Vs. State of Rajasthan, (2015) 2 SCC 775 , the benefit of one year should have been given to the petitioner. In such circumstance, the age of the petitioner would come down to 17 years on the alleged date of occurrence.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he would place on record the copy of the medical report for consideration on the next date of hearing.

Let this matter be listed on 10th February, 2020 under the same heading maintaining its position.

In the meantime, the respondent-State shall also get prepared on the issue raised by learned counsel for the petitioner."

3. After the aforesaid order was passed, a supplementary affidavit has been filed on behalf of the petitioner enclosing therewith the medical report of the medical board who determined the age of the petitioner on 13.06.2018. According to this report the age of the petitioner was assessed in between 20 years to 21 years as on 13.06.2018.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has once again reiterated that the date of occurrence being 20.06.2016, on the date of alleged occurrence the age of the petitioner would be in between 18 - 19 years and this is the fact where Rule 12(3)(b) of the Juvenile Justice Rules, 2007 would come into play.

5. Learned counsel for the State has though opposed the application but as usual in a very feeble kind of opposition without there being any material to oppose the same.

6. This Court has on the last date taken note of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Darga Ram alias Gunga Vs. State of Rajasthan, (2015) 2 SCC 775 the relevant paragraph of the said judgment being paragraph nos. 15, 16 & 17 are being taken note of hereunder for ready reference:-

"15. Rule 12(3)(b) reads as under:

"12. Procedure to be followed in determination of age. - (1)-(2) * * *

(3) ... (b) and only in the absence of either (i), (ii) or (iii) of clause (a) above, the medical opinion will be sought from a duly constituted Medical Board, which will declare the age of the juvenile or child. In case exact assessment of the age cannot be done, the Court or the Board or, as the case may be, the Committee, for the reasons to be recorded by them, may, if considered necessary, give benefit to the child or juvenile by considering his/her age on lower side within the margin of one year,

and, while passing orders in such case shall, after taking into consideration such evidence as may be available, or the medical opinion, as the case may be, record a finding in respect of his age and either of the evidence specified in any of the clauses (a)(i), (ii), (iii) or in the absence whereof, clause (b) shall be the conclusive proof of the age as regards such child or the juvenile in conflict with law."

16. The medical opinion given by the duly constituted Board comprising Professors of Anatomy, Radiodiagnosis and Forensic Medicine has determined his age to be "about" 33 years on the date of the examination. The Board has not been able to give the exact age of the appellant on medical examination, no matter the advances made in that field. That being so, in terms of Rule 12(3)(b) the appellant may even be entitled