JUDGMENT

Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra, J.

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned counsel for the opposite party No.2, learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record.

2. Pleadings have been exchanged between the parties.

3. Instant criminal revision has been preferred against the impugned order dated 25.8.2019, passed by Additional Session Judge, Court No.1, Bulandshahr, in Criminal Appeal No.195 of 2017 (Mohd. Tayyab v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another), arising out of Case Crime No.374 of 2014, under Section 302 IPC, Police Station- Sikandrabad, District Bulandshahr and the order dated 16.11.2017, passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Bulandshahr in Case No.84 of 2015 (State v. Tayyab), whereby the application of revisionist to declare him as juvenile with regard to above case has been rejected.

4. The factual matrix of the case in brief relevant for the present revision are that the present revisionist is an accused in Case Crime No.374 of 2014, under Section 302 IPC. The FIR of present case was lodged at the instance of one Safique- the first informant. He lodged the FIR against revisionist with allegation that on 15.4.2014, at around 2:00 P.M. accused persons Mohd. Tayyab, Rashid, Abdul Salam and Shahid committed murder of his brother Mohd. Aslam causing fatal injuries to him by knives and escaped from the place of occurrence. The FIR was lodged on the same day at 14:50 hours i.e. after 2:50 hours of the incident at police station- Sikandrabad, District Bulandshahr. The police proceeded to investigate the case. A plea of juvenility was taken on behalf of the present revisionist, who is one of the named accused person in the case and case was referred to Juvenile Justice Board. The Juvenile Justice Board recorded the statements of the accused side as well as opposite party and gave a finding on 19.8.2014 to the effect that the applicant Tayyab was below 18 years on the date of incident i.e. 15.4.2014 and a copy of order was directed to be sent to S.O. concerned to ensure compliance of section 19 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. This order was challenged by the first informant before the Court of Session in Criminal appeal No.132 of 2014 as well as by State of U.P. in Criminal Appeal No.59 of 2015 and both the appeals were decided by common judgement dated 27.6.2015 passed by Session Judge, whereby the criminal appeals were allowed and the impugned order dated 19.8.2014 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Bulandshahr declaring the accused Tayyab juvenile, was set aside. The appellate court remanded the matter regarding plea of juvenility of opposite party Tayyab back to J.J.B., Bulandshahr to conduct further inquiry into juvenility of Tayyab, after affording opportunity of adducing evidence to both the parties and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. The J.J.B., Bulandshahr heard the plea of juvenility raised on behalf of the accused Tayyab afresh and after considering the various documents filed by the parties far and against the plea of juvenility of the said accused and also the radiological age determination report filed by the CMO, concerned came to the conclusion that the accused Mohd. Tayyab was of 22 years of age on the date of incident vide order dated 16.11.2017. This finding and order was challenged by the present revisionist before the Court of Sessions in Criminal Appeal No.195 of 2017, which was decided by the impugned order dated 28.5.2019 by the Appellate Court, whereby the said criminal appeal was d