The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of documentary evidence, such as school certificates, in determining juvenility, and the need for a careful and conscious approach when determining the age of an accused involved in a grave and heinous offence.

JUDGMENT :

Shamim Ahmed, J.

1. This revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 09.03.2017 passed by Special Judge (POCSO Act) Additional Sessions Judge Court No. 12 Moradabad in Appeal No. 207/2016 (Shane Abbas Vs. Kumar Fiza Zaidi) dismissing the appeal of the present revisionist and confirmed the order dated 20.10.2016 passed by Juvenile Justice Board Moradabad in Case No. 77/2016 arising out of Case Crime No. 237/2016, under Sections 302, 120B I.P.C. Police Station Civil Lines, District Moradabad, by which the opposite party No.2-Kumari Fiza Naseem Zaidi has been declared juvenile.

2. The brief facts of the present case is that on 25.02.2016 opposite party No.2-Kumari Fiza Naseem Zaidi and others have committed brutal murder of the brother of the revisionist, who was practising advocate and returning from kachery (District Court). The opposite party No.2 raised the plea of her juvenility before the Juvenile Justice Board Moradabad and after considering the material evidence the Juvenile Justice Board, Moradabad vide order dated 20.10.2016 allowed the application of the opposite party no.2 and she was declared juvenile. Thereafter, the present revisionist filed an appeal against the order dated 20.10.2016 before the Special Judge (POCSO Act) Additional Sessions Judge Court No. 12 Moradabad bearing Criminal Appeal No. 207/2016 (Shane Abbas Vs. Kumari Fiza Zaidi) raising objection that the date of birth of the opposite party No.2-Kumari Fiza Naseem Zaidi as per the certificate issued by the Municipal Corporation Moradabad is 16.11.1998 and according to the High School Certificate her date of birth is 16.11.1999 and as per Medical report (X-ray report) her age is 19 years, even then learned courts below have not considered the same and passed the impugned order. Several other grounds were taken while assailing the impugned order passed by the court below.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

4. Before this Court proceeds further to assess the evidence and to consider and decide the case on merits, it shall be appropriate to examine the nature and scope of enquiry as contemplated under the law.

5. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rishipal Singh Solanki Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others 2021 0 Supreme (SC) 698 in paras 18,19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27 has held as under :

“18. The JJ Act, 2015 is a sequel to the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protectiion of Children ) Act 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘JJ Act, 2000’) which has since been repealed. Under the JJ Act, 2000, an amendment was made by Act 33 of 2006 with effect from 22.8.2006 under which Section 7A of was inserted which reads as under:

“7A. Procedure to be followed when claim of juvenility is raised before any court.— (1) Whenever a claim of juvenility is raised before any court or a court is of the opinion that an accused person was a juvenile on the date of commission of the offence, the court shall make an inquiry, take such evidence as may be necessary (but not an affidavit) so as to determine the age of such person, and shall record a finding whether the person is a juvenile or a child or not, stating his age as nearly as may be:

Provided that a claim of juvenility may be raised before any court and it shall be recognised at any stage, even after final disposal of the case, and such claim shall be determined in terms of the provisions contained in this Act and the rules made thereunder, even if the juvenile has ceased to be so on or before the date of commencement of this Act.

(2) If the court finds a person to be a juvenile on the date of commission of the offence under subsection (1), it shall forward the juvenile to the Board for passing appropriate orders and the sentence, if any, passed by a court shall be deemed to have no effect.” of Section 49 of the said Act reads as under:

“49. Presumption and determination of age.-

(1) Where it appears to a competent authority that person brought before it under any