JUDGMENT :

Jahangir Jamshed Munir, J.

1. The revisionist insists that he is a child - a child in conflict with law within the meaning of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Mainpuri has disagreed with his contention vide an order dated 27.3.2017 made in Criminal Appeal No. 46 of 2016 filed under section 101 of the Act by opposite party No. 2, Sarvendra Singh, and found him to be an adult on the date of commission of the offence, giving rise to Case Crime No. 769 of 2018, under section 302 IPC, Police Station Kotwali, District Mainpuri. The revisionist had persuaded the Juvenile Justice Board, Mainpuri in Misc. Enquiry No. 55 of 2015, State v. Rishi Chauhan, relating to the case crime under reference, to find him a juvenile on the date of occurrence, by their order dated 16.9.2016 that has since been reversed in appeal. The event in the appeal before the Additional Sessions Judge has brought the revisionist to this Court under section 102 of the Act, asking that the order of the Juvenile Justice Board be restored, and, that of the Appellate Court set aside.

2. Heard Sri Raghuvansh Misra, learned Counsel for the revisionist, Sri Kuldeep Singh Yadav, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party No. 2 and Sri Nitin Kesarwani, learned A.G.A. on behalf of the State.

3. Looking to the nature of the issue involved in the orders under challenge, the details of the prosecution case or the evidence appearing against the revisionist are not of much relevance. It would suffice to mention that in substance the prosecution case against the revisionist is that on 18.8.2015, Sushil Chauhan, and, his son Rishi Chauhan, abused the son and the son-in-law of the informant followed by assault, employing sticks (Danda blows) to batter the son of the informant, Nitesh. Nitesh was dragged over to their house by the assailants and done to death. It is on the basis of the said occurrence that the present crime was registered at the instance of opposite party No. 2, Sarvendra Singh at Police Station Kotwali, District Mainpuri, leading to the revisionist being remanded to custody pending trial.

4. An application was made to the Juvenile Justice Board, Meerut, and, hereinafter referred to as the 'Board' on behalf of the revisionist, claiming that on the date of incident he was below 18 years of age, and, therefore, had a right to be dealt with as a child in conflict with law (for short 'child'). In support of that application, the revisionist relied upon as the star documents on his secondary school certificate grade sheet, and the certificate issued by the Central Board of Secondary Education, New Delhi, that show his date of birth to be 16.5.1998. Reckoning the revisionist's age on that basis, he claimed to be 17 years 3 months and 2 days, on the date of occurrence, and, supported his application, laying claim to juvenility by an affidavit. He filed on record, his secondary school examination certificate before the Board, which shows that he had passed his secondary school certificate examination or the more familiar description of it, the High School Examination, from the U.P. Sainik School, Sarojini Nagar, Lucknow. In order to prove the document last mentioned during enquiry before the Board, an employee of the U.P. Sainik School, Sarojini Nagar, Lucknow, one Devesh Kumar was produced. He was examined before the Board as CW-1. He said in his deposition that in order to prove the date of birth of Rishi Chauhan, the revisionist here, a one time student of the School last mentioned, he had appeared along the S.R. Register maintained by the School, the admission form relating to Class VII, and, the transfer certificate dated 30.4.2009 in original, issued by Blooming Buds Public School, Mainpuri, all in respect of the revisionist. All the aforesaid documents were duly proved by the witness aforesaid, and, exhibited. The witness was al