IMPORTANT POINT
The court reaffirmed that age determination for juveniles must rely on credible documents, prioritizing educational certificates over voter lists.

JUDGMENT :

Sanjay Kumar Pachori, J.

Heard Sri Hari Prakash Mishra, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Nagendra Singh, learned brief holder for the State. Despite service of notice upon opposite party No. 2, none has appeared.

2. The present criminal revision has been preferred to set aside the judgment and order dated 25.7.2022 passed by Sessions Judge, Etah in Criminal Appeal No. 47 of 2022 by which the appellate Court allowed the criminal appeal and set aside the order dated 1.6.2022 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Etah in Criminal Misc. Case No. 94 of 2021 arising out of Case Crime No. 525 of 2021, under Section 376 (3), 506 IPC and 3/4 POCSO Act, whereby the Juvenile Justice Board declared the revisionist.

3. Before the Juvenile Justice Board the opposite party No. 2 filed his objection, alleging that as per voter list the revisionist was 25 years old and the Investigating Officer recorded that the revisionist was 22 years old on 19.11.2020.

4. The appellate Court observed that the educational certificate of the revisionist is not a reliable document and on the basis of computerised ration card of the revisionist, final voter list of Panchayat year 2021 and as per statement of CW-1 father of the revisionist, the revisionist was not a child in conflict with law and held that the revisionist was above 20 years old at the time of the incident, which had taken place in August, 2020.

5. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the appellate Court has grossly erred while relying upon the voter list, statement of juvenile made before the investigating officer and discarded the High School Certificate of the revisionist and set aside the well considered order of Juvenile Justice Board on the basis of perverse finding.

6. Per contra; learned A.G.A. for the State defended the impugned judgment and order passed by the Appellate Court.

7. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.

8. Before appreciating the evidence and submissions of the revisionist, it would be appropriate to discuss the scope of invoking the jurisdiction of the High Court in Criminal Revision.

9. The Supreme Court observed in Raj Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh, (2008) 11 SCC 76, as under :

''9. In Duli Chand v. Delhi Admn, (1975) 4 SCC 649, the scope of invoking jurisdiction of the High Court in criminal revision was examined and it was held in a case involving vehicular accident as follows: (AIR p. 1960)

The question whether the accused was guilty of negligence in driving the bus and the death of the deceased was caused due to his negligent driving is a question of fact which depends for its determination on an appreciation of the evidence. Where the Magistrate, and the Additional Sessions Judge arrived, on an assessment of the evidence at a concurrent finding of fact that the death of the deceased was caused by negligent driving of the bus by the accused and the High Court even though justified in refusing to re-appreciate the evidence reviewed the same in order to satisfy itself that there was evidence in support of the finding and that the finding was not perverse, came to the conclusion that the evidence established the death of the deceased was caused by the negligent driving of the bus by the accused, the Supreme Court on an appeal under Article 136 refused to interfere.

10. In State of Orissa v. Nakula Sahu, (1979) 1 SCC 328, it was held that the High Court should not have interfered with the concurrent findings recorded by the trial Court and the Sessions Judge in exercise of revisional jurisdiction when there was no error or fact or law arrived at by the trial Court or the Sessions Judge.

11. In State of Kerala v. Puttumana Illah Jathavedan Namboodiri, (1999) 2 SCC 452, it was held that the revisional jurisdiction is one of supervisory jurisdiction exercised by the High Court for correcting miscarriage of justice. But the said rev