IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the priority given to the date of birth mentioned in educational documents for determining the age of a juvenile, as per the provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Sri Ajay Kumar, the learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Anurag Verma, the learned AGA-I for the State and Sri Santosh Kumar Tripathi, the learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2.

2. By means of the instant revision filed under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C., the revisionist has challenged validity of an order dated 01.12.2020 passed by the Additional Session Judge/Special Judge POCSO Act, Lucknow in Criminal Appeal No. 251 of 2020 whereby the appeal was allowed, the order dated 09.10.2020 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board in Misc. Case No. 11/2020 arising out of Case Crime No. 2013 of 2015, under Section 302/120B IPC, Police Station Chinhat, Lucknow, was set aside and the matter was remitted to the Juvenile Justice Board to decide the age of the delinquent on the basis of his date of birth mentioned in his educational certificate, unless the same is not believable for any cogent reason, in accordance with the provision contained in Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015. The revisionist has also challenged validity of the order dated 22.12.2020 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board in the aforesaid case deciding the claim of juvenility of the accused in furtherance of the remand order dated 01.12.2020 and holding him to be a juvenile.

3. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the revisionist had filed FIR No. 192/2015 in Police Station Chinhat, Lucknow under Sections 302, 120-B IPC against the respondent no. 2 and his father Awadh Ram, alleging that the opposite party no. 2 is uncle of the revisionist, the revisionist’s father had sold away some land for a very meager consideration, due to which the revisionist was annoyed and he came to the complainant’s house at about 01:30 p.m. on 18.05.2015 and asked the revisionist’s father that the temple’s priest was calling him and he took the revisionist’s father with him. The revisionist and his brother were also following them and they saw that the opposite party no. 2 assaulted the revisionist’s father with a Banka (a sharp edged tool) on his neck. The revisionist alleged that the opposite party no. 2 had killed his father under a conspiracy with the father of the accused.

4. The opposite party no. 2 claimed that he was a juvenile whereas the revisionist opposed this claim. The juvenile justice board decided this issue by means of an order dated 09.10.2020 wherein it is recorded that the headmistress of Primary School Saraisheikh, Chinhat had produced the original admission form, transfer certificate and admission register before the Juvenile Justice Board and had stated that as per the aforesaid documents, the date of birth of the opposite party no. 2 is 07.07.2002. However, the headmistress of the aforesaid school appeared again and stated that the date of birth of the revisionist as entered in the school records is 12.07.1997 and she stated that earlier she had erroneously produced the documents of another student Shahiba Khatoon.

5. The revisionist filed an application for summoning the parivar register of the respondent no. 2. He submitted copies of voter list of Gram Panchayat Saraiksheikh as per which the age of the opposite party no. 2 was 23 years. The revisionist also produced a list of Pradhan Mantri Jan Aryogya beneficiaries which mentioned the age of the opposite party no. 2 to be 26 years.

6. The board allowed the application for summoning of pariwar register and the Gram Panchayat Vikas Adhikari, Gram Panchayat Saraisheikh Block Chinhat Lucknow appeared before the Board and produced pariwar register, in which the date of birth/ age of the revisionist was mentioned as 17 years. However, the said witness stated that he does not know as to when this entry was made in the register.

7. The Juvenile Justice Board took into consideration the discrepancy in the date of birth of the opposite party no. 2 mentioned in various records and found that his date of birth mentioned in the educational documents i.e. 12.09.1997, is not believable and the opposi