The date of birth in a matriculation certificate is conclusive unless credible evidence suggests otherwise, with courts favoring juvenility in borderline cases.

JUDGMENT :

Sandeep Kumar, J.

In this criminal revision, the petitioner is challenging the judgment and order dated 13.02.2024 passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Children Court, Saran at Chapra in Criminal (Juvenile) Appeal No.01 of 2024, by which he has allowed the appeal filed by the opposite party no.2 and set aside the order dated 10.11.2023 passed by the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Saran at Chapra, in Juvenile Justice Board Inquiry No.2197 of 2022 whereby and where-under the Juvenile Justice Board has declared the petitioner as juvenile on the date of alleged offence.

2. The facts of the present case are that the petitioner is an accused of Baniyapur P.S. Case No.372 of 2020 registered for the offence under sections 341, 342, 323, 324, 307, 302, 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code. In the aforesaid F.I.R. allegation against the petitioner and other accused persons is that they have killed the husband of the informant.

3. During the pendency of the case, the petitioner filed an application claiming to be a juvenile on the date of the alleged incident under the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. The Juvenile Justice Board, Saran at Chapra vide order dated 04.08.2022 passed in Juvenile Inquiry No.2197 of 2022 has declared the petitioner as juvenile on the date of alleged offence on the basis of his matriculation certificate wherein the date of birth of the petitioner is recorded as 07.07.2003 whereas, the offence is said to have been committed on 15.12.2020. Against the order dated 04.08.2022, the opposite party no.2 filed an appeal vide Criminal (Juvenile) Appeal No.36 of 2022 before the 1st Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Children Court, Saran at Chapra bringing the fact that the date of birth of the petitioner recorded in the admission register of the school in which he was studying is 07.07.2002 and the alleged offence has taken place on 15.12.2020 and therefore, at the time of alleged offence the petitioner was aged about 18 years 5 months and 8 days.

4. The learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Children Court, vide order dated 11.07.2023 quashed the order of the Juvenile Justice Board and remanded back the matter to the Juvenile Justice Board to consider the plea of juvenility afresh in accordance with law.

5. On remand, the matter was again considered by the Juvenile Justice Board, Saran at Chapra and by order dated 10.11.2023 the petitioner was declared juvenile by the non-judicial Members of the Juvenile Justice Board although the Judicial Member of the said Board held the petitioner as major on the date of alleged offence. Against the order of the Juvenile Justice Board, the opposite party no.2 filed Criminal (Juvenile) Appeal No.01 of 2024 before the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Children Court, Saran at Chapra, who vide judgment and order dated 13.02.2024 quashed the order dated 10.11.2023 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board and held the petitioner as major on the date of alleged offence. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 13.02.2024, the petitioner has moved before this Court.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the appellate Court has filed to take note of the settled law that the date of birth mentioned in the matriculation certificate has to be treated as conclusive proof of the date of birth of the accused. He further submits that the appellate Court has also failed to take note of the settled law that if two views are possible on the same evidence, the Court should take the view in favour of holding the accused to be a juvenile in borderline cases.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the appellate Court has filed to appreciate the law that no enquiry against the correctness of the date of birth mentioned on matriculation certificate can be initiated at the instance of any person other than the accused.

8. By making the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that t