Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J. – Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2.

2. This revision application has been preferred for setting aside the judgment dated 27th September, 2022 passed by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Children Court, Saran at Chapra in Criminal (Juvenile) Appeal No. 24 of 2022 arising out of the order dated 10.05.2022 passed by learned Juvenile Justice Board, Saran at Chapra (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Board’) in Juvenile Inquiry Case No. 1838 of 2022. The Juvenile Inquiry arose out of Kopa P.S. Case No. 72 of 2022 registered for the offences alleged under Sections 302, 201 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the ‘IPC’). The learned Appellate Court has refused to interfere with the order dated 10.05.2022 passed by the Board determining the age of the opposite party no. 2 as 16 years 4 months on the alleged date of occurrence.

3. It appears from the pleadings available on the record that the opposite party no. 2 has been apprehended on 03.05.2022 for his alleged involvement in the commission of murder of one Aman Sharma. The opposite party no. 2 was produced before the Board where the Board took upon an exercise to determine the age of the opposite party no. 2.

4. On behalf of the opposite party no. 2, a provisional matriculation certificate and marksheet issued by the Bihar School Examination Board (hereinafter referred to as the ‘BSEB’) showing him to have passed his secondary school examination held in the year 2020 by the BSEB were produced to prove his date of birth being 02.01.2006 as recorded in the said certificates.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Board considered the provisional certificate issued by the BSEB and accepted the plea of juvenility of the opposite party no. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner having been aggrieved by the order determining the juvenility of the O.P. No. 2 filed an appeal before the Children Court. He had obtained an information under the Right to Information Act (in short ‘RTI Act’) from the concerned school, namely Utkramit Middle School, Bhatwalia where the opposite party no. 2 had been first admitted. The information received would show that there was a clear cut tampering in the date of birth mentioned in the admission register as respect the O.P. No. 2. The petitioner pleaded that the other students who were in the same class were much lower in age as per their date of birth recorded in the register and the date of birth of the opposite party no. 2 can at the best be taken to be of the year 2004 and not above in any circumstance. With this plea, it was submitted before the learned Appellate court that the Board has completely erred in not calling the admission register of the school first attended by the opposite party no. 2 and by solely relying upon the provisional matriculation certificate and marksheet of the opposite party no. 2 issued by the BSEB.

6. Learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Children Court, however, refused to accept the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner. It has been held that there has been cutting over the date of birth mentioned in the admission record but there is no cutting or overwriting in date of birth mentioned as ‘02.01.2006’. The learned Appellate Court, therefore, held that the document filed by the petitioner rather corroborates the basis on which the opposite party no. 2 has been declared juvenile.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the impugned order on the solitary ground that learned Board as well as learned Appellate Court could not appreciate the material which was collected by the petitioner under the RTI Act. The copy of the page of the school admission register which has been brought on record is of class I and the date of admission thereon is shown as that of 02.09.2010. There has been cutting in the column showing date of birth and it is the submission of learned