ORDER

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

2. Petitioner in the present case has challenged the order dated 14.11.2019 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge Ist cum Special Judge, West Champaran at Bettiah (hereinafter referred to as the “court below”) in Matiariya P.S. Case No. 45 of 2017 whereby and whereunder the petitioner was refused to be declared as juvenile.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that in this case the petitioner has been made an accused in Matiariya P.S. Case No. 45 of 2017 registered under Sections 341, 354A(i)(ii) (iii),C,D(i)(ii), 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 8 of POCSO Act, 2012. Allegation is that he had been involved in eve teasing and using filthy language against the daughter of the informant.

4. Learned counsel submits that the date of birth of the petitioner is 14.02.2003. Subsequent to the alleged date of occurrence, he had appeared in the matriculation examination conducted by Bihar School Examination Board, Patna and had passed the same in first division. The certificate issued by the Board showing the petitioner passed in Secondary School Examination in the year 2019 would indicate his date of birth as 14.02.2003.

5. Learned counsel further submits that prior to issuance of the matriculation certificate, the petitioner was subjected to medical examination for assessment of his age. A medical examination was conducted at the instance of learned court below. As per the medical report prepared on 15.05.2019, the age of the petitioner has been found to be 19-20 years. Learned counsel submits that the date of occurrence is 09.08.2017, therefore, if the age as disclosed in the medical report is duly calculated with reference to the alleged date of occurrence and the provision of Rule 12(3)(b) of the Juvenile Justice Rules, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as the “Rules of 2007”) is duly applied, the petitioner would be adjudged juvenile.

6. Learned counsel relies upon 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 (2) BLJ 143 (SC)]. It is submitted that this Court has followed the said judgment in the case of Karanvir Singh vs. The State of Bihar reported in 2020 (2) PLJR 279 [: 2020 (2) BLJ 309].

7. Learned APP for the State has opposed this application. It is submitted that the matriculation examination was taken by the petitioner much after the alleged date of occurrence and at the time the petitioner claimed his juvenility, he did not produce the school admission register of the first school where he was admitted. It is for this reason that he was subjected to medical examination and the age disclosed in the medical report has been taken into consideration. It is submitted that subsequent attempt of the petitioner to get a declaration from the appellate court on the basis of the matriculation certificated has rightly been rejected.

8. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State as also on perusal of the record, this Court is of the considered opinion that so far as the steps taken by the learned court below for adjudging the age of the petitioner at the relevant time is concerned, no fault may be found with the same. It is not the case of the petitioner that he had produced any cogent material showing his date of birth either from school admission register or a date of birth certificate issued by the Municipal Corporation/Nagar Parishad/Panchayat. Admittedly, petitioner has taken his matriculation examination after about one and a half year of the alleged occurrence.

9. In such circumstances, if the learned court below proceeded to rely upon the medical report disclosing the age of the petitioner, the same cannot be found fault with.

10. The only question which remains for consideration is as to whether the learned court below has erred by not applying the procedure as envisaged under Rule 12(3)(b) of the Rules of 2007. Th