IMPORTANT POINT
The determination of a juvenile's age should consider all relevant facts and circumstances of the case, emphasizing the importance of documentary evidence and the need for a just view to ensure justice for both the juvenile-delinquent and the victim.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Abhinav Srivastava, the learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Anurag Verma, the learned A.G.A.-I appearing on behalf of the State and perused the records.

2. By means of the instant revision filed under Section 102 of Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 the revisionist has made following prayers :

“Wherefore it is prayed that the present Criminal Revision may kindly be allowed and the impugned order dated 07.07.2023 a Criminal Appeal 29/2023 Ram Pratap (Changed Name) vs. State of U.P. by the Learned Court of Additional District Judge/Special Judge (POCSO) Ayodhya, in so far as it relates to the present revisionist may kindly be set-aside.

It is further prayed that during the pendency of this Criminal Revision before this Hon’ble Court, the proceedings of the case in the court below may kindly be stayed.

It is further prayed that any other relief which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case may also kindly be granted to the revisionists.”

3. The impugned order dated 07.07.2023 is an order passed by the Presiding Officer, Children’s Court, Faizabad/Ayodhya dismissing the appeal filed by the juvenile-delinquent against an order dated 19.04.2023, passed by Juvenile Justice Board holding that the juvenile-delinquent needs to be tried as an adult and referring the matter to the Children’s Court.

4. The aforesaid order dated 19.04.2022 was passed by the Juvenile Justice Board in furtherance of an order dated 18.04.2022 whereby the revisionist was declared to be a juvenile in conflict with law and it was held that on the date of the incident he was about 16 years, 6 months of age.

5. The order dated 18.04.2022, passed by the Juvenile Justice Board was not challenged by the revisionist and it has attained finality. The order dated 19.04.2022, by which the matter was referred to the Children’s Court, has also not been challenged in this revision.

6. The revisionist has merely challenged the appellate order dated 07.07.2023 on the grounds that the decision is bad in law, the impugned order has been passed without application of mind to the facts and circumstances of the case and material available on record and it is illegal, arbitrary and without any application of judicial mind. It has further been contended that as per the High School marks-sheet of the revisionist, he was about 13 years, 11 months and 10 days at the time of the incident and that the Sessions Court has not considered the provisions contained in Section 94 (2) (i) Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.

7. Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 provides as follows: -

“94. Presumption and determination of age.— (1) Where, it is obvious to the Committee or the Board, based on the appearance of the person brought before it under any of the provisions of this Act (other than for the purpose of giving evidence) that the said person is a child, the Committee or the Board shall record such observation stating the age of the child as nearly as may be and proceed with the inquiry under Section 14 or Section 36, as the case may be, without waiting for further confirmation of the age.

(2) In case, the Committee or the Board has reasonable grounds for doubt regarding whether the person brought before it is a child or not, the Committee or the Board, as the case may be, shall undertake the process of age determination, by seeking evidence by obtaining—

the date of birth certificate from the school, or the matriculation or equivalent certificate from the concerned examination Board, if available; and in the absence thereof;

the birth certificate given by a corporation or a municipal authority or a panchayat;

and only in the absence of (i) and (ii) above, age shall be determined by an ossification test or any other latest medical age determination test conducted on the orders of the Committee or the Board:

Provided such age determination test conducted on the order of the Committee or th