The court held that in determining the age of a juvenile offender, the court must consider all relevant evidence, including oral testimony, documentary evidence, and opinion evidence, and must give due weight to the evidence that is most reliable and credible.

1. - The petitioner Rajendra was alleged to have intentionally caused death of one Kalua on 18.3.93. The case u/Section 302, IPC was registered against him and after investigation of the case he was charge-sheeted. The learned Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Sessions on 30.6.93. Before the Sessions Court, the question of age of the petitioner as on the date of occurrence, i.e. 18.3.93, was pending for consideration of the Court, possibly in connection with his release on bail. The case of the petitioner was that he was below 16 years of age on the day of occurrence, his date of birth being 7.7.1977. The learned Trial Court appears to have made a reference in that behalf to this Court, being S.B. Cr. Reference No. 3/93. A Cr. Misc. Petition being No. 1007/93 Rajendra v. State was also filed before this Court. This Court vide its order dated 25.1.94,whiled is posing of the Cr. Misc. Petition, directed the Trial Court to ascertain the age of the petitioner as on 18.3.93. In compliance of such orders of this Court, the learned Trial Court examined DW 1 Kishan Singh, DW 2 Lakkhu, DW 3 Smt. Premvati and DW 4 Dharam Singh, as were produced by the petitioner in support of his contention that his date of birth was 7.7.1977. Dr. Bahu Lal Meena, who was the Medical Jurist, Bharatpur at the relevant time, appears to have been examined as a Court witness. The substance of the oral evidence led by the petitioner in support of his contention was that he was below 16 years of age at the time of commission of the offence in the present case. In support of such oral evidence, the record of the school wherein the petitioner was firstly admitted was also called by the learned Trial Court. The entries made in the scholars register showed the date of birth of the petitioner as 7.7.1977. On the other hand, Dr. Babu Lal, on the basis of physical examination of the petitioner particularly of his several bones which had been bayed and the fusion whereof had been noted by him,opined that at the time of his examination on 8.6.94, the petitioner was above 17 years but below 18 years of age. On appreciation of the evidence so brought before him the learned trial Judge opined that the oral evidence led by the petitioner and as supported by the entry of the date of birth of the petitioner in the scholars register was not reliable and that the opinion of Dr. Babu Lai Meena was acceptable. The learned trial Judge, therefore, held that the petitioner was not below 16 years of age on the date of occurrence, i.e. on 18.3.93.

2. The main contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the learned trial Judge has not appreciated the nature of the evidence, as brought on his record, in right perspective. It was pointed out that the entry of the date of birth of the petitioner in the scholars register and which entry was based on the direct knowledge of the birth of the petitioner to his father, must have been given due weight particularly when such date of birth stood corroborated by the sworn testimonies of not only the parents of the petitioner but also of other persons, who may reasonably be expected to know of and remember the event of the birth of the.petitioner. In this behalf reliance was placed on the decision of this Court in the case of Dhire Dhruvendra Singh v. State of Raj., 1990 Cr.L.R. (Raj.)481 , wherein relying upon an earlier decision of this Court in the case of Gurpinder Singh v. State of Ra j.,1989 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 345 and Supreme Court decision in the case of Umesh Chandra v.State of Raj., 1982 (2) SCC 202 , it was held that oral testimonies regarding the age of a person may have utility only if no reliable documentary evidence was forthcoming on the record.

3. The learned Counsel for the respondent, however, contended that since the findings recorded by the learned trial Judge with regard to the age of the petitioner were reasonable and such findings were based on appreciation of the evidence on record, thi