Hon’ble Saumitra Dayal Singh, J.—Heard Sri Gajendra Pratap, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri P.K. Singh and Sri Sudhisht, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Amit Kumar Srivastava, Sri Ashish Kumar Gupta and Sri Sanjay Srivastava, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 as also Sri Ankit Srivastava, learned AGA for the State.

2. The present revision has been filed by the applicant who has described himself as Brijesh Kumar Singh, son of late Ravindra Nath Singh @ Ravindra Pratap Singh, against the order dated 12.10.2017 passed by the Additional District and Session Judge, Court No. 1, Varanasi in S.T. No. 55A of 1987 (State v. Brijesh Kumar Singh, arising out of Case Crime No. 28 of 1986, under Sections 148, 302/149, 307 read with Section 149 I.P.C., and 25(1)B Arms Act, Police Station Balua, District Varanasi (now Chandauli). By that order, learned Court below has rejected the claim of juvenility made by the applicant under Section 7(A) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000.

3. Admittedly, the applicant is arraigned as an accused in the Session Trial No. 55A/1987, under Section 148, 302/149, 307 read with Section 149 I.P.C., and 25(1)B Arms Act involving mass murder of seven persons. The incident is of date 9.4.1986. The trial remained pending against the applicant largely in view of the fact that the applicant remained an absconder for more than 15 years after the criminal case had been committed to trial. Later, he was arrested by the Delhi Police, from Orissa, in the year 2008. It was only thereafter the applicant could be put up for trial in the present case and in some other criminal trials as well.

4.At that stage, the applicant filed the aforesaid application on 6.8.2015 claiming he was a juvenile on the date of the incident. The claim was made on the strength of a duplicate copy of the high-school certificate, the Tabulation Register relevant to the High School Certificate and some other school records. On that basis, it had been claimed that his date of birth was recorded as 1.7.1968. This documentary evidence was sought to be proved by A.P.W.1 Sadanand Pandey, the Principal of Laxmi Shankar Inter College, which school was earlier known as Higher Secondary School Rajwari, Varanasi; A.P.W. 2 Chandra Bhushan, the Senior Administrative Officer, Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, Allahabad and A.P.W. 3 Moolchand Ram, Principal Primary School, Ghohara Pratham, Cholapur, Varanasi. The applicant had contended that his father Ravindra Nath Singh was also known in his alias Ravindra Pratap Singh. Therefore, it was contended there is no discrepancy in the high-school certificate produced by the applicant (wherein his father’s name was found recorded as Ravindra Pratap Singh), and the Tabulation Register where that name was mentioned as Ravindra Nath Singh. It was thus claimed, in face of the age of the applicant having been proven by High School Certificate, there survived no scope for any other or further evidence to be examined thereafter.

5. The prosecution and the informant vehemently opposed the aforesaid application. They submitted that the high-school certificate produced by the applicant was forged or fabricated or manipulated document and in any case, it did not relate to the present applicant. It was thus submitted that in the first place, the applicant did not produce the original high-school certificate. A clear manipulation and interpolation exists in such certificate inasmuch as admittedly, there exists an unexplained difference in the name description of the applicant’s father, as disclosed in the High School Certificate and as disclosed in the Tabulation Register produced by the applicant. On account of such discrepancy, it was submitted, that the High School Certificate was in any case, not proved. Learned counsel for the informant contended, if the applicant’s father was also known as Ravindra Pratap Singh and therefore that name came to be recorded in his High