Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J.—Learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes to remove all the defects as pointed out by the Stamp Reporter within four weeks after start of normal functioning of the Court.

2. Heard Mr. Kedar Jha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Akhileshwar Dayal, learned APP for the State.

3. The petitioner in the present case is aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated 08.07.2021 passed by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Children Court, Darbhanga in Cr. Appeal No. 06 of 2021 whereby and whereunder the order dated 19.03.2021 declaring the petitioner a major passed by learned Juvenile Justice Board, Darbhanga in J.J.B. Case No. 482 of 2021 arising out of Baheri P.S. Case No. 268 of 2020 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324, 307, 427, 302, 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code has been affirmed.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the impugned judgment and order on the solitary ground that the learned Juvenile Justice Board as well as the Appellate Court have wrongly taken into consideration the school admission register of the school from which the petitioner has passed his matriculation examination. It is his contention that once the petitioner had passed out his matriculation examination from the Central Board of Secondary Education (in short ‘CBSE’) in which his date of birth is recorded as 30.06.2003, the said date of birth is to be taken as a conclusive proof of the fact that the petitioner is a juvenile on the alleged date of occurrence. It is his submission that in view of the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jabar Singh vs. Dinesh and Anr. reported in (2010) 3 SCC 757, the date of birth of the petitioner recorded in the school admission register could not satisfy the condition laid down in Section 35 of the Evidence Act inasmuch as the date of birth entered in the said register was not in any public or official register and was not made at all by a public servant or in discharge of his official duty.

5. Initially, learned counsel for the petitioner had also taken a plea that even if the medical examination report determining the age of the petitioner is taken into consideration, the petitioner is liable to be declared juvenile. According to him, the medical examination report shows that the petitioner was aged between 20-22 years.

6. Learned counsel sought to reduce two years from the lower limit of age i.e. 20 years and then further applying the provision of Rule 12(3)(b) of the Juvenile Justice Rules, 2007, he argued that further one year will be liable to be reduced and thereby the petitioner would come within the ambit of the age which will make him a juvenile but immediately after going through the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Darga Ram @ Gunga vs. State of Rajasthan reported in (2015) 2 SCC 775 [: 2015 (1) BLJ 143 (SC)], the learned counsel understood that the age of plus minus 2 years was reduced in the said case from the upper extreme limit and not from the lower limit. This argument has, thus, been abandoned at the threshold.

7. Learned counsel submits that the Juvenile Justice Board had no reason to disbelieve the matriculation certificate of the CBSE showing the date of birth of the petitioner as 30.06.2003. Learned counsel has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashwani Kumar Saxena vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in (2012) 9 SCC 750 (paragraphs 20 and 21) and the judgment in the case of Rishipal Singh Solanki vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. reported in AIR 2022 SC 630 [: 2022 (1) BLJ 305 (SC)] {paragraph 29, sub-paragraph (ix)}.

8. On the other hand, learned APP for the State has opposed this application. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner in the present case was admitted in Don Bosco School at Darbhanga. His date of birth recorded in the school is 12.01.2000 but the date of birth of the petitioner mentioned in the registration card of the