The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on the Juvenile Justice Act, specifically Section 7A and Rule 12, for determining the juvenile status of the appellant based on evidence from the school records.

Sanjiv Khanna, J. (ORAL);—

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor prays for and is granted permission to place on record status report.

2. As per the said status report, a detailed investigation and verification was done and it has been ascertained that the appellant Dany @ Ravi was educated and had studied in MCD Primary Co-Education School, Motia Khan, Pahar Ganj, New Delhi-110055 from 1st May, 1995 till 1st April, 2002 from class Ist to class Vth. At the time of admission, his date of birth as disclosed and as per the school records is 4th April, 1990. Certificate issued by the school principal is enclosed with the report.

3. The appellant was earlier involved and was facing prosecution in FIR No. 18/2007, Police Station Rohini, under Section 308/34 IPC. In the said case, verification/inquiry was held. As per documents placed on record, a medical board was constituted for ascertaining the age of the appellant. The Medical Board on the basis of X ray of shoulder, elbow, pelvis with B/L hip and right hand with wrist and other material referred to therein had opined that the appellant herein was between 16-18 years as on 24th January, 2007. The offence subject matter of FIR No. 18/0207 was committed on 1st May, 2007 and accordingly the appellant was held to be less than 18 years of age at the time of commission of offence. He was declared juvenile and was tried under Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. The appellant was acquitted in the said case vide order dated 27th July, 2009 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board.

4. The appellant is also facing prosecution in FIR No. 329/2006 dated 11th April, 2006 under Section 324/34 IPC. The said prosecution proceedings are pending before the Metropolitan Magistrate Mr. Dharmender Singh and the next date of hearing is 12th October, 2012.

5. In the present case, the offence in question was committed on 9th January, 2008. As per the date of birth recorded in the school and as per the certificate issued by Principal of the MCD Primary Co-Education School, Motia Khan, Pahar Ganj, New Delhi-110055, the appellant’s date of birth is 4th April, 1990. In view of the aforesaid position, on the date when the alleged offence was committed, the appellant was less than 18 years of age. In terms of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, in the absence of matriculation or equivalent certificate, the date of birth certificate from the school other than play school, which was first attended, is determinative in deciding whether or not the appellant was juvenile on the date when the offence was committed. Thus, in view of the certificate issued by the Principal, MCD Primary Co-Education School, Motia Khan, Pahar Ganj, New Delhi-110055, it has to be held that the appellant Dany @ Ravi was a juvenile on the date of the offence.

6. The Supreme Court in Ashwani Kumar Saxena versus State of M.P., Criminal Appeal No. 1403/2012 decided on 13th September, 2012, has examined and elucidated upon Section 7A and Rule 12 and observed:-

“32. Consequently, the procedure to be followed under the J.J. Act in conducting an inquiry is the procedure laid down in that statute itself i.e. Rule 12 of the 2007 Rules. We cannot import other procedures laid down in the Code of Criminal Procedure or any other enactment while making an inquiry with regard to the juvenility of a person, when the claim of juvenility is raised before the court exercising powers under section 7A of the Act. Many of the cases, we have come across, it is seen that the Criminal Courts are still having the hangover of the procedure of trial or inquiry under the Code as if they are trying an offence under the Penal laws forgetting the fact that the specific procedure has been laid down in section 7A read with Rule 12.

33. We also remind all Courts/J.J. Board and the Committees functioning under the Act that a duty is cast on them to seek evidence by obtaining the certificate etc. mentioned in Rule 12 (3) (a)