ORDER

1. This criminal revision under section 397/401 of CrPC has been filed against the order dated 9.12.2019 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Sabalgarh, District Morena in Sessions Trial No.315/2017, by which it has been held that the respondent No.2 is a juvenile, being aged about 17 years and 11 months and accordingly, it was held that the trial Court has no jurisdiction to hear the matter and the same was transferred to the Juvenile Justice Board.

2. It is the case of the prosecution that the dead body of one unknown person was found. During merg investigation, it was found that the respondent No.2, who is the wife of the deceased and other co-accused persons have committed his murder and accordingly, FIR in Crime No. 307/2017 was registered at Police Station Sabalgarh, District Morena for offence under sections 302, 201, 120 B, 506, 34 of IPC. The charge sheet was filed against the respondent No.2 by showing that she is major.

3. The respondent No.2 filed an application under section 7A of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, alleging that on the date of incident, the respondent No.2 was 17 years and 11 months old and, therefore, she was juvenile and thus, she may be tried by the Juvenile Justice Board. The statements of the witnesses on the question of juvenility of the respondent No.2 were recorded.

4. The statement of the respondent No.2 was recorded in which she has stated that as per the school record, her date of birth is 20.7.1999 and, therefore, she was 17 years and 11 months old on the date of incident.

5. The statement of Mahesh Meena (PW2) was recorded, who has proved the School Register, according to which the date of birth of the respondent No.2 was recorded as 20.7.1999.

6. Immamuddin Khan (PW3) has also proved the date of birth of the respondent No.2 recorded in the school register.

7. The statement of Bheralal Rawat (NA1), the father of the respondent No.2, was recorded. In examination-in-chief itself, he has specifically stated that the date of birth disclosed by him at the time of admission of the respondent No.2 was not correct and the correct date of birth of the respondent No.2 was one year older than what was disclosed by him in the school at the time of admission. The father of the respondent No.2 was extensively cross-examined by the respondent No.2, however, he stuck to his stand that the date of birth of the respondent No.2 which was disclosed by him at the time of her admission is not correct, and he had falsely disclosed the age of the respondent No.2 which was one year younger than her actual date of birth.

8. The prosecution had also filed a copy of the voter list of Tahsil Sabalgarh, District Morena in which the age of the respondent No.2 was shown as 18 years.

9. The trial Court, after considering the ocular as well as the documentary evidence, came to a conclusion that if the voter list which has been placed on record by the prosecution is considered, then it is clear that it was issued in the year 2013 and according to that voter list, the age of the respondent No.2 was 18 years which does not match with the date of birth mentioned in the School Register or the age as claimed by her father. The trial Court did not give any cogent reason for disbelieving the statement of the father of the respondent No.2 in which he had stated that he had disclosed incorrect date of birth of the respondent No.2 at the time of her admission in the School and the date of birth which was disclosed by him was one year younger than the correct date of birth of the respondent No.2.

10. Without specifically disbelieving the statement of the father of the respondent No.2,who himself had got the respondent No.2 admitted in the School, the trial Court relied upon the school certificate according to which, the date of birth of the respondent No.2 was 20.7.1999 and on the date of incident, she was about 17 years and 11 months old and accordingly, it was held that since on the date of