JUDGMENT :

JYOTSNA SHARMA, J.

1. Heard Sri Raj Kumar Kesari, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Sunil Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and Sri O.P. Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State in both the matters.

2. Perused the record.

3. These criminal revisions have been filed on behalf of the alleged minor through his natural guardian/mother challenging the order dated 05.10.2021 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act), Court No. 2, Varanasi in both the matters in Criminal Appeal Nos. 96 of 2020 and 97 of 2020 affirming the order dated 19.11.2020 and 11.11.2020 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Varanasi respectively, by which the applications presented by the revisionist for declaring him juvenile were rejected and he was declared an adult.

4. Facts in brief leading to filing of these revisions are as below:

Two FIR were lodged against the revisionist as Case Crime No. 247 of 2019, under section 3/25 Arms Act and Case Crime No. 227 of 2019, under sections 302, 307, 34, 504, 506 I.P.C. After investigation, charge-sheets were filed and cognizance was taken by the court concerned; thereafter, applications were moved before the Juvenile Justice Board for declaring him juvenile along with affidavit supported by certain papers like matriculation certificate and school certificate showing his date of birth as 02.09.2002; the statement of CW-1 mother Pooja Upadhyay, CW-2 Clerk from Harsewanand Public School, Varanasi, CW-3 Rishikant Sharma, a Clerk from Nagar Nigam Varanasi and CW-4 Anand Sharma, a Clerk from Annie Besant Primary School were examined. The Juvenile Justice Board was of the view that on the date of occurrence the accused was above 18 years of age and passed the order in both the matters on 19.11.2020 and 11.11.2020, respectively; appeals were preferred against the aforesaid orders passed by the Juvenile Justice Board; the appellate court dismissed the appeal and also dismissed the application filed on behalf of the juvenile for his medical examination moved for the purpose of determination of age.

5. The contentions of the revisionist are as below:

Firstly that the birth certificate issued by the Nagar Nigam Varanasi, High School certificate, certificate from school where he studied from class-6 to class-8 showing his date of birth as 02.09.2002 were produced; however, the court committed a grave error in not relying on them; the Juvenile Justice Board and the appellate court instead relied on the papers of Annie Besant Primary School, where he studied from class-1 to class-5; in continuation of this argument, it is contended that there has been ample evidence to show that in that school the date of birth was wrongly recorded. To support this contention, it is stated on oath by mother of the minor that she infact gave birth to her second child on 02.09.2001 and that male child died within 15-20 days. Therefore, the birth registration in Nagar Nigam Varanasi showing date of birth as 02.09.2001 is of her second child and not of present minor accused, who is her third child; during the pendency of the appeals, an application dated 04.09.2021 supported with the affidavit annexing another birth certificate (showing date of birth 02.09.2002) issued by the Nagar Nigam Varanasi was filed in the appellate court by the revisionist; the appellate court took no notice of that birth certificate showing the minor-revisionist’s date of birth same as recorded in matriculation certificate; the impugned order is silent about filing of that paper therefore the order cannot be sustained in law; the application is still pending. It is vehemently contended that where clear and unambiguous documents pertaining to middle school as well as high school are available supported by a birth certificate, the court could not ignore them; the findings are arbitrary and against the evidence on record, therefore, the revision deserves to be allowed.

6. For the purpose of checking the le