The accused-petitioner failed to discharge the burden of proof to establish his juvenility, and the documents submitted by him were not reliable or conclusive proof of his age.

1. - In this revision petition, accused-petitioner Saddam Hussain has challenged the order dated 4.4.2013 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge No. 3, Bikaner in Sessions (Murder) Case No. 130/2013 titled as State v. Saddam Hussain whereby the learned Court below has dismissed the application of the petitioner for treating him Juvenile under Section 7A of Juvenile Justice Act, 2000 (for short 'the Act of 2000'). Petitioner Saddam Hussain is an accused in the aforesaid Sessions Case and charge-sheet was filed against him under Section 302/34 I.P.C. etc. The alleged incident took place on 2.3.2012. The petitioner states that his date of birth is 17.3.1994 and accordingly his age on the date of offence comes to 17 years 11 months and 15 days and, therefore, he claims to be a Juvenile delinquent.

2. The learned Court below has not accepted the argument advanced by accused Saddam Hussain. By consent of both sides, final arguments on merit have been heard in this case at the stage of admission.

3. The learned Public Prosecutor has argued that accused Saddam Hussain was above 18 years of age at the time of commission of offence of murder and it has also been argued by the learned Public Prosecutor that accused-petitioner has not been able to prove that he was below 18 years of age on the date of alleged commission of murder.

4. I have perused the ruling Kamaljeet v. State of Rajasthan, 2012(1) CJ (Cri.) 268.1 have perused the provisions of Section 7A of the Act of 2000 and Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, Rule 12 states as under:

"12. Procedure to be followed in determination of Age. - (1) In every case concerning a child or a juvenile in conflict with law, the Court or the Board or as the case may be the Committee referred to in Rule 19 of these rules shall determine the age of such juvenile or child or a juvenile in conflict with law within a period of thirty days from the date of making of the application for that purpose.

(2) The Court or the Board or as the case may be the Committee shall decide the juvenility or otherwise of the juvenile or the child or as the case may be the juvenile in conflict with law, prima facie on the basis of physical appearance or documents, if available, and send him to the observation home or in jail.

(3) In every case concerning a child or juvenile in conflict with law, the age determination inquiry shall be conducted by the Court or the Board or, as the case may be, the Committee by seeking evidence by obtaining -

(a) (i) the matriculation or equivalent certificates, if available; and in the absence whereof;

(ii) the date of birth certificate from the school (other than a play school) first attended; and in the absence whereof;

(iii) the birth certificate given by a corporation or a municipal authority or a panchayat;

(b) and only in the absence of either (i), (ii) or (iii) of clause (a) above, the medical opinion will be sought from a duly constituted Medical Board, which will declare the age of the juvenile or child. In case exact assessment of the age cannot be done, the Court or the Board or, as the case may be, the Committee, for the reasons to be recorded by them, may, if considered necessary, give benefit to the child or juvenile by considering his/her age on lower side within the margin of one year; and, while passing orders in such case shall, after taking into consideration such evidence as may be available, or the medical opinion, as the case may be, record a finding in respect of his age and either of the evidence specified in any of the clauses (a)(i), (ii), (iii) or in the absence whereof, clause (b) shall be the conclusive proof of the age as regards such child or the juvenile in conflict with law.

(4) If the age of a juvenile or child or the juvenile in conflict with law is found to be below 18 years on the date of offence, on the basis of any of the conclusive proof specified in sub-rule (3), the Court or the Board or as the case may be the C