The court established that a juvenile's age must be determined primarily through credible documents, and doubts regarding age should favor the juvenile; life imprisonment cannot be imposed on juveniles.

JUDGMENT :

Vivek Kumar Birla, J.

1. Heard Sri Ajay Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri O.P. Dwivedi, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State respondents.

2. The present appeal has been filed by the appellants challenging the judgment and order dated 18.9.1991 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Bareilly in Session Trial No. 434 of 1989 convicting the appellant under Section 302 IPC for life imprisonment.

3. The prosecution story in brief is that the complainant Ram Kumar was residing in Mohalla Punjabpura Chet Ram Phatak, Bareilly; the complainant and one Kaka were sitting on a cot on 29.4.1989 at 8:15 P.M. in front of his house and there was a dibbi light; there was a lantern burning in the house of Radhey Shyam (deceased); the accused-appellant Chhalla and his maternal uncle Kanhai came through the lane; the deceased was standing on the Chabutara of his house; the accused Challa showered abuses on Radhey Shyam; the deceased made objections; the accused-appellant told to the deceased that he used to demand house rent and also want to get it vacated and he would teach a lesson to him; the co-accused Kanhai instigated the accused- appellant; the co-accused Kanhai caught the deceased and the accused-Chhalla caused knife injury to the deceased; the knife hit the stomach of the deceased; the deceased raised an alarm; wife, mother-in-law and sister of the deceased came to his rescue; the complainant Ram Kumar and Kaka also came to his rescue; when they tried to catch the accused they ran away from the spot along with knife; the informant took Radhy Shyam to hospital where he died; the informant came to the police station at about 9:30 P.M. and lodged the first information report no. 49 on 29.4.1989.

4. At the very outset, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that an application was filed to decide the appeal of the appellant as a juvenile in conflict with law. The said application was supported by an affidavit in which School Leaving Certificate of the year 1982 has been attached in support of his claim showing his date of birth as 4.7.1975 and date of occurrence on 29.4.1989. It was contended that from the above material it is ascertained that on the date of the commission of crime, i.e. 29.4.1989, the appellant was below 18 years of age and therefore, was entitled for the benefit of the provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act.

5. By an order dated 6.3.2024, the Juvenile Justice Board was directed to conduct inquiry to get the genuineness of the certificate verified.

6. Pursuant to the order of this Court dated 8.2.2018 the Juvenile Justice Board, Bareilly after recording statements of the witnesses and considering the evidence on record including the Medical Board report dated 24.6.2024, according to which the appellant was aged about 55 years old on 24.6.2024 and in this condition the accused was found about 19 years 10 months and 6 days old on the date of incident but it was concluded that based on facts and circumstances of the case, it appears just in the eyes of law that benefit of two years is liable to be given to the appellant. Therefore, it was held that on the date of incident dated 29.4.1989 he was 17 years 10 months and 6 days old and, therefore, was a juvenile. Thus, the Juvenile Justice Board, Bareilly vide report dated 3.7.2024 held the appellant Chhalla @ Bhagwan Das to be a juvenile on the date of incident i.e. 29.4.1989.

7. We have gone through the statement of the accused-appellant recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. on 19.7.1991, wherein his age is shown as 18 years, therefore, according to that on the date of incident dated 29.4.1989 he was aged about 16 years.

8. In Rishipal S