Daya Chaudhary, J.

The present revision petition has been filed to challenge judgment dated 02.07.2015 passed by the Sessions Judge, Pathankot dismissing the appeal filed against order dated 18.05.2015 passed by Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Pathankot.

FIR No.11 dated 07.12.2015 was registered under Section 376 of Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 against respondent No.2. However, respondent No.2 was juvenile at the time of occurrence as his date of birth in the matriculation certificate was recorded as 29.01.1997. He was less than 18 years of age on the date of occurrence i.e., 07.12.2015. Respondent No.2 was sent to Observation Home, Hoshiarpur vide order dated 18.05.2015 as he was declared juvenile under Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 (hereinafter called as 'Rules 2007').

Aggrieved by said order dated 18.05.2015, the petitioner-complainant filed an appeal before the Sessions Judge, Pathankot and the same was dismissed on 02.07.2015, which is subject matter of challenge in the present revision petition.

Leaned counsel for the petitioner submits that both the Courts below have ignored the certificate issued by the Registrar, Births and Deaths. The date of birth mentioned in the matriculation certificate is different from the certificate issued by the Registrar, Births and Deaths. Learned counsel further submits that in case, the date of birth mentioned in the certificate issued by the Registrar, Birth and Death, is considered, then accused-respondent No.2 does not fall within the definition of Juvenile as the issue is in conflict with law. The case where the issue relating to child or juvenile is in conflict with law, then it is to be referred to the Board or Committee as the case may be as per provisions of Rule 19 of the Rules 2007. In the present case, the date of birth of respondent No.2 in the matriculation certificate is different from the birth certificate and as such, as per provisions of Rule 19 of the Rules 2007, it should have been referred to the Board or Committee. Learned counsel also submits that an application was also moved under Rule 12(3) of the Rules 2007 but the same has not been decided so far. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon Division Bench judgment of this Court in Ambika Kaul vs. Central Board of Secondary Education and others, 2015(3) SCT 350 in support of his contentions.

Learned counsel for respondent No.1 – State submits that the age of accused-respondent No.2 was less than 18 years at the time of occurrence and he was declared juvenile under Rule 12 of the Rules 2007. A detailed finding has been given by the Appellate Court also and no interference, therefore, is required.

Heard arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned State counsel and have also perused the order passed by the Sessions Judge, Pathankot as well as order passed by Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Pathankot.

Admittedly, as per date of birth mentioned in matriculation certificate, accused-respondent No.2 was juvenile at the time of occurrence but in case, the date mentioned in the birth certificate i.e., 09.05.1996 is considered, he was major.

The issue for consideration before this Court is whether entry in the birth certificate will prevail in case, the same is in conflict with the date of birth recorded in birth certificate or matriculation certificate. No doubt, entry in birth certificate is made on the asking of parents of the child immediately after the birth. When a child is got admitted in the school, the date of birth is informed by the parents or the person, who goes to school for admission. In case, the same is based on some document, then there is no conflict but in the present case, the date of birth recorded in the matriculation certificate is different from the birth certificate. In case, the date of birth recorded in matriculation cer