1. This revision under section 397 read with section 401 of CrPC is directed against the order dated 8.1.2014 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Mandsaur in Sessions Trial No.101/2010, by which, the learned Additional Sessions Judge decided juvenility of the present petitioners Rakesh, Himmat and Vinod and gave a finding that the present petitioners were more than 18 years of age on the date of occurrence which was 5.3.2010.

2. The facts giving rise to this application are that the learned Special Judge by the impugned order decided the application filed by the present petitioners and while deciding the application, the learned ASJ gave an inference that they were above 18 years of age at the time of incident.

3. The present revision is filed on the ground that the present petitioner is entitled to the provisions of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 and the procedure is led down in rule 12 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007. According to the counsel for the petitioner, age of the petitioner was not computed according to the provision of Rule 12 of the rule and the procedure led down by the Rules was not followed by the Court. The learned Additional Sessions Judge while deciding the juvenility of the present petitioners has taken into consideration the fact that the present petitioners failed to examine the parents or guardian who got them admitted in the educational institution to ensure that, correct date of birth was intimated to school and correct date of birth was recorded in the records of the school. Learned ASJ has also taken into consideration the fact that in the arrest memo and memorandum prepared under section 27 of the Evidence Act, they intimated to the police that age of the petitioner Rakesh was 18 years and that of petitioners Himmat and Vinod was 22 years. Learned ASJ also observed that no suggestion was put to witness Ajay Mishra who appeared on behalf of the State that they never mentioned their age while arrest memo and memorandum under section 27 of the Evidence Act were prepared. On the basis of these facts, learned ASJ doubted the correctness of the records of the school and decided against the present petitioners.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court delivered in the case of Ashwani Kumar Saxena v. State of M.P. reported in 2013(1) JLJ 69 = (2012) 9 SCC 750 . In this case, it was held that the only documents enumerated in Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Case and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 were taken into consideration. No extraneous consideration can form the basis of inference drawn in respect of age of the accused.

5. The jurisdiction relating to assessment of age of juvenile is enshrined in section of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 and the procedure is led down in rule 12 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children ) Rules, 2007. The relevant portion of rule 12 (3)(1) may be reproduced as under :

12. Procedure to be followed in determination of Age -

(1) .........................

(2) .........................

(3) In every case concerning a child or juvenile in conflict with law, the age determination inquiry shall be conducted by the Court or the Board or, as the case may be, the Committee by seeking evidence by obtaining -

(a) (i) the matriculation or equivalent certificates, if available, and in the absence whereof;

(ii) the date of birth certificate from the school (other than a play school) first attended; and in the absence whereof;

(iii) the birth certificate given by a corporation or a municipal authority or a panchayat;

(b) and only in the absence of either (i)(ii) or (iii) of clause (a) above, the medical opinion will be sought from a duly constituted Medical Board, which will declare the age of the juvenile or child. In case exact assessment of the age cannot be done, the Court or the Board or , as