The main legal point established in the judgment is the strict adherence to the procedure prescribed under Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, for determining juvenility, and the requirement to consider evidence prima facie on the touchstone of preponderance of probability.

ORDER :

The applicant has filed this criminal revision under section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure challenging the legality; propriety and correctness of the order dated 12-5-2015 passed in Sessions Trial No. 4/15 by learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Chhatarpur, whereby application filed under section 7-A of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 by the applicant has been rejected holding that at the time of incident the applicant was not a juvenile.

2. Factual matrix of the case are that against the applicant Session Trial No. 4/15 under section 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code is pending before the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Chhatarpur. The allegation against the applicant-accused is that on 13-10-2014 the respondent No. 2/complainant Ramji Soni went with the applicant-accused with another co-accused on motorcycle which was driven by one Julfar who suddenly stopped motorcycle. When the complainant asked why he stopped motorcycle whereupon the applicant-accused fired two gun shots upon the complainant/respondent No. 2 and thereafter, he ran away from the spot. The complainant/respondent No. 2 informed the police about the incident. On the basis of that report, the police registered a criminal case at Crime No. 485/2015 against the applicant-accused and another co-accused Julfar. During trial, the applicant-accused had filed an application under section 7-A of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 before the learned trial Judge stating that on the date of incident i.e. on 13-10-2014 he was below the age of 18 years as his date of birth is 31-5-1997 but the learned trial Judge after inquiry rejected the application, against which, the present revision petition has been preferred on the ground that the impugned order is contrary to law. Learned trial Judge has failed to appreciate the scope and procedure of the inquiry and has totally ignored the provisions of Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, therefore, the finding is perverse, illegal and incorrect.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant has contended that the applicant, to prove his date of birth as 31-5-1997, has filed copy of Scholar Register of the school which is Ex.PC(1), where the applicant has first attended other than a play school. This document is also supported by the statement of father of applicant namely Umardaraj Khan (PW-2) and the teacher of the school concerned namely Gourav Kumar (PW-1) but the learned lower Court has ignored the aforesaid evidence and held unreliable on the basis of statement of staff nurse of the District Hospital, Chhatarpur namely Smt. Rajni Sharma (PW-3) who has stated that in the record of birth register of the District Hospital, Chhatarpur, dated 31-7-1997 there is no entry about the birth of the applicant as a child of Vahida Begum w/o Umardaraj while, father of the applicant, Umardaraj (PW-2) has stated in his statement that birth of his son i.e. the present applicant was taken place in the District Hospital, Chhatarpur and the same facts have been mentioned in the birth certificate Ex.PC(2) issued by the Municipality, Chhatarpur. Learned lower Court has taken very hyper-technical view and expected from the applicant that he must have proved his case beyond reasonable doubt, in which, he has failed and has recorded the aforesaid finding which is contrary to law and unsustainable. In support of his case, learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ashwani Kumar Saxena vs. State of M.P., AIR 2013 SC 553 and Abuzar Hossain @ Gulam Hossain vs. State of West Bengal, AIR 2013 SC 1020.

4. Learned Panel Lawyer appearing on behalf of the State opposing the submissions made on behalf of the applicant-accused has argued in support of the impugned order and prayed for rejection of the revision petition.

5. Having considered the submissions made by learned coun