The issue of juvenility should be decided by the Juvenile Justice Board, and the appeal under Section 101 of the JJ Act is maintainable only against the order of the Committee or the Board.

JUDGMENT

Rajesh Bhardwaj, J. - The petitioner, i.e. the prosecutrix (hereinafter to be called as the 'victim') of this case has approached this Court impugning the order dated 25.09.2020 passed by ACJM Jagadhri vide which respondent No.2/accused has been declared juvenile on the basis of allegedly fake documents. She has further impugned the order dated 20.11.2020 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Yamuna Nagar, vide which the appeal filed by the victim was declined being not maintainable.

2. It has been contended by learned counsel for the victim that both the Courts below have fallen in error in drawing the conclusion as the same is against the law and the facts on record and, thus, both orders deserve to be set aside.

3. Adumbrated facts of the case are that the victim lodged the FIR alleging therein that they had a shop in Amar Vihar Colony, Jagadhri. A boy named Amit Kumar used to come to their shop for purchasing the necessary items. In the absence of her father, he used to ask her to perform marriage with him but she used to refuse the same. Thereafter on 30.12.2019 at 6.00 p.m. when her father was not at the shop, he came to her and took her with him by alluring her with a promise to marry. In the night, he took her in the hotel room in Saharanpur and committed bad act with her against her will in the hotel room. On her resistance, he threatened to kill her. In the morning, she informed her father about the incident happened to her. Her parents came to Saharanpur to take her alongwith them.

4. The FIR was lodged to take the legal action against the culprit Amit Kumar. Investigation commenced and respondent No.2/accused was arrested on 31.12.2019 and sent to judicial custody. He filed an application praying for declaring him juvenile. Learned ACJM Jagadhari, after hearing the parties and considering the facts on record, accepted the application filed by respondent No.2 and declared him as juvenile vide impugned order dated 25.09.2020. Aggrieved by the said order, the victim filed an appeal under Section 101 of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (for brevity,'the JJ Act') in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Yamunanagar, who after hearing the victim and the respondents, dismissed the same vide its impugned order dated 20.11.2020. Aggrieved by both these orders, the victim is before this Court by way of this revision petition.

5. Learned counsel for the victim has vehemently contended that the Courts below have not appreciated the facts on record judiciously and hence fallen in error in declaring respondent No.2/accused as juvenile. He submits that the occurrence in question took place in the intervening night of 30/31.12.2019 and respondent No.2/accused was arrested on 31.12.2019. Thereafter father of accused, namely, Kareshan Lal filed an affidavit in the Court of learned ACJM, Jagadhari specifically attaching the school leaving certificate of the accused as Annexure-A and birth certificate as Annexure-B. He pleaded that date of birth of his son, i.e. respondent No.2/ accused is 16.04.2005. He has submitted that the school leaving certificate produced by father of the accused in the Court of learned ACJM was procured subsequent to the occurrence and on the basis of the same, the date of birth of the accused was manipulated as 16.04.2005. He submits that learned ACJM without noticing the mischief played by respondent No.2/accused, accepted the forged and fabricated documents procured by him and thus, fallen in error in declaring him as juvenile. He submits that learned ACJM, Jagadhari, has failed to appreciate that respondent No.2/accused filed a petition for grant of regular bail before this Court vide CRM-M-22263-2020, however the same was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 14.08.2020. Learned counsel for the victim contends that the relevant provisions of the JJ Act, i.e. Section 94, reads as under:-

'Section 94: Presumption and determination of age:(1) Where it is obvious to