Hon’ble Vinod Prasad, J.—Once again to be or not to be a juvenile is the question, which has been mooted for consideration by the revisionist Saddam @ Sonu in the instant revision whereby he has challenged the order dated 19.2.2011 passed by lower appellate Court/Additional Session’s Judge, Court No. 2, Saharanpur in Criminal Appeal No. 99/2010, Muneer v. Saddam @ Sonu. By the impugned order lower appellate Court had reversed Juvenile Justice Board’s order dated 14.10.2010 passed in Miscellaneous Case No. 30/11 of 10, State v. Saddam @ Sonu relating to Crime No. 86 of 2010, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 302, 307, 506/34 IPC, Police Station Deoband, District Saharanpur and has rejected revisionist claim of being a juvenile and has declared him to be an adult.

2. Unfolded background facts indicate that the revisionist was an accused in a murder incident regarding which crime No. 86 of 2010, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 302, 307 and 506/34 IPC was registered at P.S. Deoband, District Saharanpur. Factual matrix about the incident is not very relevant for deciding present revision and hence detail narration of the same is hereby eschewed. However back ground facts indicate that incident in question was that of murder and attempt to murder after trespassing into informant Muneer’s house by forming an unlawful assembly armed with blunt and deadly weapons vide Annexure 1. In that incident on 7.2.2010, which occurred at 11.30 a.m. one Kafeel was annihilated and injuries were caused to Muneer and Saleem by the revisionist and his associate accused.

3. Revisionist in that crime moved an application supported with an affidavit (Kha5), before Juvenile Justice Board, herein after referred to as the Board, for being declared to be a juvenile. On such a claim Board conducted an inquiry, during course of which revisionist examined his mother EW-1 Rizwana, EW-2 Praveen Kumar, Clerk of J.J. Happy Junior High School, Industrial Estate, Deoband and EW-3 Narendra Kumar, Principal, Bharat Public School, Labkari, Deoband, district Saharanpur to substantiate his plea of being a juvenile. EW-2 Praveen Kumar, Clerk of J.J. Happy Junior High School, Industrial Estate, Deoband had proved T.C. Exhibit Kha-1 S.R. Register from serial number 778 as Exhibit Kha-2. EW-3 Narendra Kumar, Principal,Bharat Public School, Labkari, Deoband, district Saharanpur had proved T.C. of class-V of Bharat Public School, Labkari, Deoband Exhibit Kha-3 and S.R. register from serial number 143 as Exhibit Kha-4.

4. Informant contested claim of juvenility and as documentary evidence had filed voters list of 2001 prepared during Panchayat election. At serial number 1356 regarding house No. 192 name of the revisionist was printed mentioning his age as 20 years. Besides above evidences, age of the revisionist was also got determined by constituting a medical board and according to it’s report dated 31.3.2010 revisionist was aged about 18 years. Various decisions were cited before the Board by either side. Board vide it’s order dated 14.10.2010 concluded that on the date of the incident 7.2.2010 revisionist was a juvenile in conflict with law.

5. Aggrieved by Board’s decision informant Muneer challenged it under Section 52 of Juvenile Justice Act by preferring Criminal Appeal No. 99 of 2010 Muneer v. Saddam @ Sonu before Session’s Judge, Saharanpur and Additional Session’s Judge, Court No. 2, Saharanpur allowed informant’s appeal, reversed Board’s decision dated 14.10.2010 and declared the revisionist to be major being more than 18 years of age vide impugned judgment and order dated 19.2.2011.Hence, this revision by accused revisionist, challenging lower appellate Court’s order.

6. In the background of aforementioned facts, Sri V.M. Zaidi, learned senior counsel for the revisionist, urged that the lower appellate Court erred and committed mistake in upturning Board’s order by misreading evidences and recording facts contrary to the material available on the record. Lear