IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that reliable documentation and the benefit of doubt in age determination favor the accused in juvenile cases.

JUDGMENT :

(Ravindra Maithani, J.) :

The challenge in this revision is made to the following:-

(i) Order dated 19.06.2010, passed in Case No.763 of 2010, State Vs. Abid @ Guddu (Case Crime No.55 of 2010, under Section 376(2)(f) IPC, Police Station Bhagwanpur, Distrit Haridwar), by the Juvenile Justice Board (“the JJ Board”), Haridwar. By it, the bail application of the revisionist has been rejected. And ;

(ii) Order dated 10.04.2014, passed in Criminal Appeal No.113 of 2012, Abid @ Guddu Vs. State and Another, by the I Additional Sessions Judge, Haridwar (“the appeal”). By it, the order dated 19.06.2010 passed by the JJ Board was affirmed.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

3. According to the FIR, on 06.03.2010, at 4:00 PM, the revisionist along with co-accused raped the victim, a young girl of 6 years. The revisionist was arrested by the police on 10.03.2010. In his first remand sheet, which is available on record and is before this Court, his age is recorded as 14 years. He was then sent to Children Observation Home. During the hearing, the revisionist moved an application before the JJ Board, Haridwar, for declaring him juvenile. The following records were available before the JJ Board:-

(i) The family register of Village Mohana, Tehsil Roorkee, District Haridwar, in which the revisionist has been shown to have born in the year 1993.

(ii) The scholar register of Madarsa Islamia Arabia Madina-Tul-Ulum, Kishanpur, Puhana, Haridwar (“the school”), in which the date of brith of the revisionist is recorded as 04.04.1996.

(iii) The transfer certificate from the school recording the age of the revisionist as 04.04.1996. And;

(iv) The medical examination test done on 05.04.2010. It records the age of the revisionist about 18 years.

4. After hearing the parties and considering the evidence, the JJ Board held that the principal of the school has stated that the age at the time of admission is entered on the basis of estimation. Accordingly, the age recorded in the school record was not accepted. In the family register, the age of the revisionist was recorded as 17 years. The JJ Board also did not believe it on the ground that this date of birth is different than the date of birth of the revisionist, as recorded in the school record. Thereafter, the JJ Board adverted to the Ossification test and noted that it is a settled position of law that an error of two years in determining the age on the basis of medical report is possible. But the JJ Board held that if a document is proved to be genuine and satisfy the requirement of law, it should be, subject to just exceptions, to be relied upon. Accordingly, the JJ Board observed that, “as the date of birth of the revisionist in the school record of Madarsa Islamia Arabia Madina-Tul-Ulum, Kishanpur, Puhana, Haridwar, has been recorded on the basis of estimation, as per the principal of the school, and other evidences disclosing his age to be higher than the age that is claimed by the applicant................................the age of the applicant Abid cannot be held to be ascertainable below eighteen years on the date of incident”.

5. The revisionist challenged the finding recorded by the JJ Board in Case No.763 of 2010, State Vs. Abid Alias Guddu, in the appeal, which upheld the order dated 19.06.2010, passed by the JJ Board.

6. The court in appeal relied upon the principles of law, as laid down in the case of Om Prakash Vs. State of Rajasthan and Another, AIR 2012 SC 1608, and referred that according to this judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that in serious cases like rape, if an accused intends to take benefit of legal position and produces documents, which creates doubts, in such circumstances, medical report should be given importance. Challenge in this revision is made to these orders by which the revisionist was denied benefit of juvenile.

7. Learned counsel for the revisionist would submit that the age of the juvenile could have been ascertained i