The determination of juvenility relies on the authenticity of the first academic records unless clear evidence of manipulation is presented, reinforcing the priority of academic documentation over later records.

JUDGMENT

Subhash Chandra Sharma, J.

Heard Sri. Amit Kumar Dixit, learned counsel for revisionist, Sri. Sanjeev Kumar Saxena, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 as well as learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

2. The present criminal revision has been preferred by the revisionist through her father under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act-2015 (hereinafter referred to as "J.J. Act, 2015) to allow the present revision and set aside the judgment and order dated 24.11.2022 passed by learned Additional Session Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act), Banda in Criminal Appeal No. 29 of 2022 as well as order dated 28.09.2022 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Banda in Case Crime No. 161 of 2022 under Sections 376 , 504, 506 IPC. and Section 4 Protection of Child From Sexual Offence Act, Police Station Girvan, District Banda.

3. Fact in brief are that the revisionist is victim and rape was committed with her by the opposite party no.2. The accused was declared to be juvenile by the learned J.J. Board vide order dated 28.09.2022 on the basis of academic record from class 1st to class 10th. During the course of inquiry the revisionist/victim filed previous academic record of the opposite party no. 2 from Primary School where his admission was taken in class 1st and his date of birth was different from that of the school record produced by the opposite party no. 2. Learned Board decided the age of the opposite party no. 2 in accordance with the date of birth as mentioned in the academic record produced by him but discarded the date of birth which was shown in the previous academic record of class 1st in the Primary School and also the voter list entry, showing him to be major on the date of occurrence. Being aggrieved with the order passed by learned Board, an appeal was preferred before the learned court of Sessions which was also dismissed vide order dated 24.11.2022 on the ground that the academic record filed by the opposite party no. 2 was not said to be manipulated.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that the opposite party no. 2 first attended Primary School Devrar, Circle Mahua, District Banda on 08.07.2010 where his date of birth was entered as 10.07.2003 in scholar register at Serial No. 1888 and after passing class 1st his admission was made in class 2nd in the same school on 01.07.2011 but without taking school leaving certificate, he took admission in the private school namely, Brahmand Gyan Ashram, Vasi by showing his date admission on the same date i.e. 08.07.2010 in class 1st at Serial No. 1828 of the scholar register of the school. Later on, he took admission in class 6th in Brahmand Gyan Ashram, Purva Madhyamik Vidhyalaya, Vasi Circle Girwa, District Banda and then in class 9th in Pt. Jawaharlal Nehru Inter College, Girwa, District Banda from where he passed matriculation. In this way, the date of birth as mentioned in the first attending school was reliable and the age of opposite party no. 2 was to be determined on that basis but the learned Board as well as learned appellate court did not consider this fact and discarded the date of birth as mentioned in first attending school and accepted the date of birth which was entered in the subsequent school by adding two years more i.e. 02.04.2005 which cannot be said to be lawful. Further submitted that request to the learned Board was made that the age of the opposite party no. 2 be determined either on the basis of date of birth entered in first attending school or getting it determined on the basis of ossification test by medical board but this request was also not considered either by the learned