The legal principle established is that the date of birth recorded in school documents holds primacy in determining a person's age under the Juvenile Justice Act.

JUDGMENT

1. The appellant has moved an interlocutory application (No.01/2020) seeking inquiry regarding his date of birth and to declare him to be a juvenile as per the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 2015')-

2. Shri Shambhoo Singh, learned counsel representing the appellant submits that the appellant was arrested in this case on 03.09.2018 and his date of birth was mentioned in the arrest memo (Ex.P/25) as 06.08.2000 without any basis. As per Shri Rathore, neither the admission form or any other authentic proof regarding the date of birth of the appellant at the time of his initial admission in the school was collected by the police during investigation nor was any such document proved at the trial. He further submits that the application for determination of age filed on behalf of the appellant was mechanically rejected by the trial court vide order dated 02.11.2018 without getting him examined by a Medical Board. It is also submitted that even after conviction, looking to his tender age, the appellant has been sent to the Children's Observation Home, Jaitaran, District Pali where he is undergoing sentence. He submits that as the evidence collected regarding the date of birth of the accused during trial is unreliable, other collateral documents viz. date of birth certificate issued by the Gram Panchayat, Hospital, Nagar Palika and horoscope should be taken on record and the age be determined accordingly. His alternate submission was that ends of justice require that a Medical Board should be constituted and his date of birth be determined on the basis of his medical examination by the Board. He also urged that the appellant was arrested and presented before the Juvenile Justice Board and even the charge-sheet was filed before the Board and thus, the trial of the appellant by the Special Judge, POCSO Act Cases No.2, Udaipur is vitiated. In support of his contentions, Shri Rathore placed reliance on the Supreme Court Judgment in the case of Ashwani Kumar Saxena Vs State of Madhya Pradesh reported in AIR 2013 SC 553 and the Allahabad High Court Judgment in the case of Surendra Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in 2014 (3) ALJ 188.

3. Learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by the appellant's counsel and urged that an application with this very prayer was filed on behalf of the appellant before the trial court wherein, it was asserted that the appellant's father got him admitted in the school but because he was illiterate, an estimated date of birth was given out, whereas actually the appellant was just 13 years of age on the date of the incident. This application was rejected by the trial court vide a well reasoned order dated 02.11.2018 which has attained finality. Thus, he sought dismissal of the application filed on behalf of the appellant for fresh age determination.

4. We have heard and considered the submissions advanced at bar and have gone through the material available on record.

5. The allegation against the appellant is of committing sexual assault on the victim Mst. 'R' who was just about 12 years of age on the date of the incident. We have carefully perused the order dated 02.11.2018 passed by the Special Judge, POCSO Act Cases No.1, Udaipur whereby the application for determination of age of the accused on the basis of a Medical Board examination was dismissed. In this order, the trial court took note of the fact that the documents/school certificates in accordance with Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 were available on record which firmly established that the accused was 18 years and 1 month of age as on the date of the incident i.e., 01.09.2018. Section 94 of the Act of 2015 reads as below:-

"Section 94. Presumption and determination of age.

(1) Where, it is obvious to the Committee or the Board, based on the appearance of the person brought before it under