The burden of proof for establishing juvenility lies with the claimant, and entries in Matriculation Certificates are conclusive unless contradicted by credible evidence.

JUDGMENT

Mrs. Manisha Batra, J.

The petitioner herein is challenging the order dated 19.09.2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Palwal in case arising out of FIR No.60 dated 03.06.2019 registered under Sections 302, 366A, 376D, 201 of IPC and Section 4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 at Police Station GRP, Faridabad, District Faridabad wherein he has been facing trial as an accused and whereby an application filed by him for declaring him as a juvenile, was dismissed.

2. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order on the ground that the same is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the respondent had not been successful in negating the claim of the petitioner that he was a juvenile on the date of incident and was entitled to all the protections under the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (For short "JJ Act, 2015"). The concerned Court committed a grave error while ignoring the entries made in the Secondary and Senior Secondary Examination School Certificates respectively of the petitioner showing his date of birth as 16.09.2001, though as per Section 94 of the JJ Act, 2015, only these entries were such that were relevant. Reliance was wrongly placed upon the record of Women and Child Development Office, Palwal wherein the date of birth of one Vinod @ Ashok was mentioned as 09.11.1999 and even it had not been proved that these entries pertained to the present petitioner. He further argued that since the genuineness of the entries in the document as relied upon by the respondent itself was in great doubt and the legislative intent behind the provision of Section 94 of JJ Act, 2015 is that entries in the Matriculation Certificate were conclusive and fully reliable, therefore, the petition filed by the petitioner deserved to be accepted and the impugned order was liable to be set aside. In support of his argument, learned counsel placed reliance upon Ashwani Kumar Saxena v. State of MP, (2012) 9 SCC 750.

3. Per contra, the stand as taken by learned State counsel was that the petitioner had only produced photocopies of his Secondary Examination and Senior Secondary Examination School Certificates and these entries per se could not be accepted on their face value unless the petitioner satisfied the conditions laid down under Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (For short "Act, 1872") which were not so satisfied and since contradictory evidence in the form of record maintained by the office of Women and Child Development Office, Palwal with regard to the exact date of birth of the petitioner had been produced by the respondent-State, therefore, no fault could be found in the findings as recorded by learned trial Court. Learned State counsel in this context has placed reliance upon Sanjeev Kumar Gupta v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, (2019) 12 SCC 370.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned State counsel were heard at considerable length.

5. At the outset, it may be mentioned that the JJ Act, 2015 is a sequel to the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (now to be mentioned as "Act, 2000") which has since been repealed. Under the Act, 2000, an amendment was made w.e.f. 22.08.2006 under which Section 7A was inserted which provided the procedure to be followed when claim of juvenility is raised before any Court. As per this provision, on raising of claim of juvenility before any Court, it shall make an inquiry, take such evidence as may be necessary so as to determine the age of the person and shall record a finding whether the person is a juvenile or a child or not. Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 (For short "Rules, 2007") prescribes procedure to be followed for determination of age. The juvenil