ORDER

1. This criminal revision has been preferred by the applicant under section 102 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 being aggrieved by the order daed 2.11.2019 passed by II Additional Judge to the Court of I ASJ, Jhabua in Special case No.6/2019 whereby the claim of the juvenility of the applicant has been disallowed.

2. Brief facts of the case are that crime No. 758/2019 for the offence under sections 305, 376(2) of IPC and section 5(L)/6 of POCSO Act has been registered against the applicant at P.S. Jhabua. After completion of the investigation charge sheet was filed against the applicant and the case was committed for trial to the Sessions Court. During the trial, an application has been moved on behalf of the applicant under section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act (in short 'the Act') claiming that the applicant was juvenile at the time of incident, therefore, his case be sent to the Juvenile Justice Board for hearing.

3. The application was opposed by the respondent/State contending that there is no document available on record to establish the date of birth of the applicant and the entry made in the Aadhaar Card regarding date of birth is not a conclusive proof of his age, therefore, prayer was made for dismissal of the application.

4. Learned Addl.Sessions Judge directed for conducting the ossification test of the applicant for determination of his age and according to the report received from District Medical Board, Jhabua, the radiological age of the applicant is above 16 years but below 18 years, however learned Addl.Sessions Judge was of the view that this report is not sufficient for determining the age of the applicant and rejected the claim of the applicant. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the instant revision petition has been filed.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that impugned order is illegal and contrary to the settled principles of law and learned trial Court has ignored the provisions of section 94 of the Juvenile Justice Act and wrongly held that ossification test report is not enough for accepting the age of the applicant below 18 years, therefore the aforesaid finding deserves to be set aside and the impugned order be quashed and the applicant be declared to be juvenile at the time of incident.

6. Learned Public Prosecutor supported the impugned order and submitted that trial Court has not committed any error in rejecting the claim of the applicant.

7. I have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents filed along with the petition.

8. Before going into the controversy involved in the matter, it would be useful to reproduce the relevant provision to arrive at just conclusion. Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice Act reads as under:

S.94 - Presumption and determination of age -

(1) Where, it is obvious to the Committee or the Board, based on the appearance of the person brought before it under any of the provisions of this Act (other than for the purpose of giving evidence) that the said person is a child, the Committee or the Board shall record such observation stating the age of the child as nearly as may be and proceed with the inquiry under section 14 or section 36, as the case may be, without waiting for further confirmation of the age.

(2) In case the committee of the Board has reasonable grounds for doubt regarding whether the person brought before it is a child or not, the Committee or the Board, as the case may be, shall undertake the process of age determination, by seeking evidence by obtaining -

(i) the date of birth certificate from the school, or the matriculation or equivalent certificate from the concerned examination Board, if available; and in the absence thereof ;

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

(iii) and only in the absence of (i) and (ii) above, age shall be determined