The main legal point established in the judgment is the procedure to be followed in the age determination inquiry under the Juvenile Justice Act, emphasizing the conclusive proof of age and the reliance on official records to determine the appellant's age.

Sanjiv Khanna, J.

1. The appellant Bhim @ Sagar has been convicted under Section 394 and 397 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 27 and 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 by judgment dated 9th March, 2010 in the criminal case arising out of FIR No. 206/2008, P.S. Adarsh Nagar. By order on sentence dated 22nd March, 2010, Bhim has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life for offences under Sections 392/34 IPC read with Section 394 and 397 IPC. He has also been sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 50,000/- and in default of payment fine, he is to undergo simple im-prisonment for one month.

The appellant has also been sentenced rigorous imprisonment for five years and fine of Rs. 1000/- for the offence under Sec¬tions 27 read with Section 25 of the Arms Act and in default of payment of fine he is to undergo simple imprisonment of five days.

2. The co-accused Ajay and Devi Prakash have been also convicted and sen¬tenced. But we are not concerned with the conviction and sentence awarded to them.

3. Along with the grounds of appeal, the appellant had filed the present applica¬tion CrI.M.A. No. 20091/2012 under Section 482 Cr. P.C., 1973 read with Juvenile Justice (Care and protection of Children) Act, 2000 (J.J. Act for short) with a prayer that the Court may take into consideration the school certificate of the appellant (photocopy of which is enclosed) and declare that he was a juvenile on the date of commission of of¬fence i.e. on 3rd September, 2008.

4. By order dated 18th December, 2012, the State was asked to verify the school certificate and to submit a report within fifteen days. The State took time to verify the school certificate. Subsequently, vide order dated 12th February, 2013, the ap¬pellant was directed to be produced before the trial court on 25th February, 2013 and that an inquiry to ascertain the age of the ap-pellant would be conducted and completed within two months.

Two months time was granted as re¬cords from outside Delhi were to be verified and checked.

5. The trial court has conducted the said inquiry and submitted a report dated 8th April, 2013. The trial court has, inter alia, concluded that different dates of birth of the appellant stand recorded in (i) the school re¬cords; (ii) the Kutumb Register (Family Reg¬ister) maintained by the panchayat; and (iii) in the ration card. As per the ration card, the appellant was 20 years of age in the year 2006 and in the Kutumb Register the appel¬lant's date of birth is recorded as 17.6.1988. In the school record, the appellant's date of birth has been mentioned as 6th September, 1991. The trial court has opined that date of birth as mentioned in the Kutumb Register should be accepted in preference to the date of birth mentioned in the school record. Two reasons have been ascribed. Firstly, the date of birth in the Kutumb Register was recorded at the time of birth of the appellant and is, therefore, more authentic and correct, whereas date of birth in the school records, was on oral statement of the parents and there is no document or basis for recording the said date. Secondly, it is highlighted that it is highly improbable that the appellant was born on 6th May, 1991 as recorded in the school record. The difference between date of birth of Malti (elder sister) and the appel¬lant is only about eight months. The trial court has relied upon Section 35 of the Evi¬dence Act to support its conclusion that on the date of occurrence i.e. 3rd September, 2008 the appellant was 20 years, 2 months and 16 days old.

6. The enquiry report submitted by the trial court is contested before us by the counsel for the appellant who has drawn our attention to Rule 12(3) of the Juvenile justice (Care & Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 and Delhi Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Rules, 2009 which for the sake of convenience are hereinafter referred to as J.J. Rules and Delhi J.