Bibek Chaudhuri, J. – The instant criminal revision is directed against the order, dated 19th of July 2022, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 1st Court-cum-Special Judge, Children's Court, at Sitamarhi, in connection with Criminal Appeal No. 13 of 2022, filed by the Opposite Party No. 2 herein, whereby and whereunder, the learned Appellate Court quashed and set aside the order, dated 18th of February 2022, passed by the learned Juvenile Justice Board (hereinafter referred to as the ‘JJB’) Sitamarhi in G.R. Case No. 3102 of 2019, arising out of Parihar P.S. Case No. 167 of 2019. The JJB declared the Petitioner to be a Child in Conflict with Law.

2. On the basis of a written complaint submitted by the Opposite Party No. 2, police registered Parihar P.S. Case No. 167 of 2019 against altogether 18 persons, including the Petitioner, alleging, inter alia, that the accrued persons surrounded his brothers, namely, Md. Akram and Md. Arman and assaulted both of them with the help of lathi, gadasha, knife, sword, iron rod, etc., as a result of which, one of the brothers of the de facto complainant, namely, Md. Akram died.

3. In the FIR, the Opposite Party No. 2 purposefully recorded the age of the Petitioner as 25 years, although, at the time of alleged occurrence, the Petitioner was only 16 years of age. As the Petitioner took up the ground of his juvenility, he was produced before the Juvenile Justice Board, and upon inquiry, the JJB held that, on the date of occurrence, the Child in Conflict with Law (hereinafter referred to as the ‘CICL’) was aged about 15 years, 9 months, and 13 days. As the CICL was below 16 years of age, the learned Principal Magistrate, JJB, allowed Petitioner's application for bail, vide order, dated 2nd of March 2022.

4. Against the aforesaid order, the informant preferred an appeal before the Children's Court under the provision of Section 101 of the Juvenile Justice Act (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘said Act’). The said appeal, being Criminal Appeal No. 13 of 2022, was allowed by the Appellate Court, and the learned Judge, in appeal, held the Respondent/Petitioner herein not to be a CICL on the date of commission of offence.

5. On perusal of the impugned judgment, it is ascertained that the Appellate Court determined the age of the victim in the touchstone of Section 94 of the said Act. Sub-Section 2 of Section 94 states: –

“94(2) In case, the Committee or the Board has reasonable grounds for doubt regarding whether the person brought before it is a child or not, the Committee or the Board, as the case may be, shall undertake the process of age determination, by seeking evidence by obtaining –

(i) the date of birth certificate from the school, or the matriculation or equivalent certificate from the concerned examination Board, if available; and in the absence thereof;

(ii) the birth certificate given by a corporation or a municipal authority or a panchayat;

(iii) and only in the absence of (i) and (ii) above, age shall be determined by an ossification test or any other latest medical age determination test conducted on the orders of the Committee or the Board: or provided such age determination test conducted on the order of the Committee or the Board shall be completed within fifteen days from the date of such order.

6. Indisputably, the Petitioner failed to produce any matriculation or equivalent certificate as per Section 94 (2)(i). The Petitioner relied upon birth certificate and school living certificates. The JJB, on the other hand, relied upon the report rendered by the Board of Doctors on the basis of an ossification test report dated 22nd of November 2021, wherein the age of the Petitioner was found to be 18 to 19 years on the date of medical examination i.e. 26th of October 2021. The JJB gave the benefit of variation and determined the age of the Petitioner as 15 years, 9 months, and 13 days on the date of occurrence. Therefore, the Petitioner w