Statutory hierarchy under Section 94 of Juvenile Justice Act gives primacy to school/matriculation certificates over medical opinion for juvenility determination; lower court must follow even if documents produced later, remanding for fresh consideration.

JUDGMENT :

Ashish Naithani, J.

1. The present criminal revision has been preferred under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, assailing the judgment and order dated 30.03.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/FTC (POCSO), Haridwar, in Misc. Criminal Case No. 10 of 2024 (State v. Hukum Singh), whereby the application of the Revisionist seeking declaration of juvenility was rejected and the Revisionist was held to be a major.

2. The Revisionist is an accused in FIR No. 0714 of 2023, registered at Police Station Laksar, District Haridwar, under Sections 363, 366, 376(2) IPC and Sections 5 /6 of the POCSO Act. The Revisionist is in judicial custody since 24.10.2023.

3. The case of the Revisionist is that his date of birth is 12.01.2007, and therefore, on the date of the alleged incident, he was below eighteen years of age and was a child in conflict with law within the meaning of the Juvenile Justice Act. In support of the said claim, reliance is placed upon the school transfer certificate, school records, family register and Aadhaar card, all of which record the same date of birth.

4. It is the admitted position that, before the court below, the aforesaid educational and public documents were not produced. Instead, an application was moved by the then counsel for the Revisionist seeking medical examination for determination of age.

5. Pursuant thereto, a medical board was constituted, which opined that the age of the Revisionist was between 18 to 20 years. Relying primarily upon the said medical opinion, the court below, by the impugned order dated 30.03.2024, rejected the claim of juvenility and declared the Revisionist to be a major.

6. Aggrieved by the said order, the present revision has been filed. During the pendency of the revision, the Revisionist moved an application for bringing additional documents on record, namely the school records, family register and Aadhaar card, which has been allowed, and the said documents have been taken on record.

7. Learned counsel for the Revisionist submits that the impugned order is wholly unsustainable in law inasmuch as it proceeds in complete disregard of the mandatory statutory scheme contained in Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.

8. It is argued that under the said provision, primacy is required to be given to the date of birth certificate from the school or the matriculation or equivalent certificate, and only in the absence of such documentary evidence, recourse can be had to medical opinion.

9. It is submitted that the school transfer certificate, school records, family register and Aadhaar card, which are now on record, uniformly record the date of birth of the Revisionist as 12.01.2007, and therefore, on the date of the alleged incident, the Revisionist was admittedly below eighteen years of age.

10. It is further contended that the medical opinion is, at best, an estimate with a margin of error and cannot override authentic documentary evidence relating to date of birth.

11. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the failure to place the said documents before the court below occurred due to lapses on the part of the earlier counsel, and the Revisionist, who was in custody, cannot be made to suffer for the same.

12. It is also argued that the court below has adopted a legally impermissible approach by treating the