The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of following the prescribed procedure for age determination under the Juvenile Justice Act and Rules, and the need for cautious scrutiny of documentary evidence to prevent its misuse.

Kailash Gambhir, J.

1. By this petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 the petitioner seeks to challenge the impugned order dated 12.10.2010 passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the application filed by the petitioner accused under Section 6, 7, 18 and 49 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 for sending his case to the Juvenile Justice Board.

2. The petitioner, who has claimed himself to be a juvenile at the time of commission of the alleged offence, is accused in FIR bearing No. 78/2009 registered against him along with the co-accused persons under Sections 365/302 IPC. This FIR was registered at the instance of one Mr.Durgapal, brother of deceased Arun Pal. The police has also completed its investigation and charge-sheet has been filed against the accused persons for the offences punishable under Section 365/302/120B/34 IPC. The petitioner had moved an application before the Sessions Court under Sections 6, 7, 18 and 49 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 for sending his case to Juvenile Justice Board on the ground that he was aged about 16 years at the time of commission of the alleged offence. The said application, moved by the petitioner, was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide order dated 12.10.2010 and the said order is challenged by the petitioner in the present petition.

3. To prove his juvenility at the time of commission of the alleged offence, the petitioner has proved on record his school leaving certificate as Exhibit DW1/B and the relevant entries in the admission register of the school as Exhibit DW1/A. The school leaving certificate of the petitioner was also verified by his Head Master vide his report dated 24.09.2009 wherein the date of the birth of the petitioner has been verified to be 2.1.1993. Along with the said report, the certificate dated 23.09.09 issued by the Principal Anokhey Ram PrathmikVidyalaya, GheraMazra, Khamaria, Jaipur Shajahanpur was also annexed. To prove school records the petitioner produced DW1, ShriVinay Kumar Hans, Principal Incharge of Primary school, who produced the original admission register of the school wherein the name of the petitioner was found registered at Sr. No. 127 and his date of birth in the relevant column as 2.1.1993. DW1 also proved school leaving certificate as Exhibit DW1/2B after identifying the signatures of the previous Principal on the said original certificate at some point X.

4. Learned Trial Court after referring to the cross-examination of DW1 reached to the conclusion that the school records produced by him did not inspire any confidence and they did not appear to be genuine and authentic. The learned Trial Court also found that the said witness did not produce admission form of the petitioner although as per the deposition of DW1admission form is filled by the student at the time of seeking admission. The Court further found that the said witness in his cross Crl. examination had admitted that the date of birth of the children admitted in the school from Sr. No. 127 to 148 is 2nd of Month, which was found not possible from any standard of normal prudent man. The court therefore directed the ossification test of the petitioner and as per the test which was conducted on 17.12.2009, the petitioner was found more than 20 years of age at the time of his examination. The learned Trial Court thus relying upon the said test and after giving benefit of two years to the petitioner, held him to be of more than 18 years of age at the time of commission of the alleged offence.

5. Assailing the said order, Mr.SaurabhKansal, Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that learned Trial Court has ignored the procedure for determining the age of the juvenile in conflict of law as laid down in the Juvenile Justice(Care and Protection of Children)Rules, 2007 framed under