IMPORTANT POINT
The medical evidence should not be treated as conclusive proof of age, and the court should seek additional evidence, such as school records and documentary evidence, to arrive at the right conclusion.

JUDGMENT :

Jyotsna Sharma, J.

1. Heard Sri Nafees Ahmad, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Rishabh Kumar Pandey, holding brief of Sri Santosh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

2. By means of this criminal revision, the revisionist has challenged an order dated 01.10.2022, passed by learned Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act)/Children Court, District Meerut in Criminal Appeal No. 128 of 2022 arising out of case crime no. 55 of 2022 under sections 147, 148, 149, 323/34, 302, 504, 395 and 412 IPC, whereby the order dated 27.08.2022 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, holding him as adult has been confirmed and the Criminal Appeal No. 118 of 2022, preferred by the juvenile has been dismissed.

3. The relevant facts are as below:-

The instant revisionist has been found involved in case crime no. 55 of 2022 under sections 147, 148, 149, 323/34, 302, 504, 395, 412 IPC and produced before the Juvenile Justice Board. In the age determination inquiry conducted by the Juvenile Justice Board, the evidence has been led and further the medical opinion has also been obtained. After conclusion of inquiry, two members of the Board passed an order on 27.08.2022 holding the juvenile as aged about 16 years and 6 months on the date of the incident. The same day, on the basis of the same material, the Principal Magistrate passed a separate order holding him to be above 18 years and further directed that his case may be transferred to the court concerned for further proceeding. Both the orders, one passed by the Principal Magistrate and the other passed by the rest of two members of the Juvenile Justice Board, were separately challenged respectively on behalf of the juvenile (Criminal Appeal No. 128 of 2022) and on behalf of the victim (Criminal Appeal No. 118 of 2022). Both the appeals have been decided by a common order passed by the appellate court, on 01.10.2022 in which the Criminal Appeal No. 118 of 2022 filed by the victim was allowed and the Criminal Appeal No. 128 of 2022 filed on behalf of the juvenile was dismissed.

Consequentially, he has been held as an ‘adult’. Now the juvenile is before this Court in revision filed on his behalf.

4. The submission in brief are that his school leaving certificate showing his date of birth as 12.09.2005, has not been considered. His date of birth is 12.09.2005 and the same has been proved by the testimony of his father. Though the school leaving certificate was available but he was wrongly sent for medical examination. In the medical examination, his age has been found 19 years and therefore even on the basis of medical examination, taking into account probability of two years margin, he should have been held as below 18 years. Further the medical opinion said that he was not exactly 19 years but below 19 years, but his aspect has not been considered by the Principal Magistrate. Further submission is that the two members of the Board gave a different opinion, and that the majority opinion shall prevail, over the opinion of the Principal Magistrate. The appellate court gave a contrary finding which is against the law.

5. As per the admitted case of the revisionist, he did not obtain any formal education from class 1 to 4 and directly took admission in class 5th in certain school at Mawana, Meerut and thereafter in class 6th at his bua’s place at Daraula, Meerut and that he did not study any further. His date of birth is 12. 09.2005 and the same has been shown in his T.C. of class 5th, a copy thereto is on record.

6. I perused the papers on record, the perusal of the T.C. shows that in that school he got admitted on 6.7.2015 and left that school next year in the month of March, 2016 i.e. he studied there only for 8 months. Two diverse orders have been passed by the J.J. Board, one by the Principal Magistrate alone and the other by rest of the two members. However, in both the orders it has been clearly observed that