Reserved on 05.01.2023

Delivered on 14.02.2023

Court No. - 88

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3550 of 2012

Revisionist :- Ganga Singh

Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another

Counsel for Revisionist :- A.R. Gupta

Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,Gyan Prakash,Ram Mohan

Tiwari

Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.

1.

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the

State. None has appeared on behalf of the respondent No. 2.

2.

This criminal revision has been preferred against the order dated

07.09.2012, passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Court No.1,

Etah in Criminal Appeal No. 38 of 2012, as also against the order dated

02.06.2012, passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Etah, whereby the

opposite party No.2 (Chandra Pal), has been declared a juvenile with

reference to Case Crime No. 66 of 2012, P.S. Baghwala, District Etah, under

Section 302 I.P.C.

3.

Learned counsel for the revisionist argued that both the impugned

orders are against facts and law and thus liable to be set aside. The

revisionist has lodged first information report of this case against the

opposite party No. 2 under section 302 IPC regarding murder of his

daughter. The opposite party No. 2 has moved an application before the

Juvenile Justice Board, Etah with prayer that he be declared juvenile. In the

inquiry relating to declaration of juvenility of the opposite party No.2, no

opportunity of hearing was provided to the revisionist. It is contended that

the transfer certificate, which has been relied for the purpose of declaring the

opposite party No.2 as a juvenile, is not from the School first attended by the

opposite party No. 2, as from the statement of Anil Kumar Yadav, the Head-

Master of Sri Krishna Adarsh Primary School, it is clear that the O.P. No. 2

Chandra Pal was admitted in Class-III in that school. Accordingly, it has

been contended that the Juvenile Justice Board could have decided the

2

question of juvenility only with reference to medical opinion regarding age.

It has also been contended that before the appellate court, the revisionist had

produced various documents disclosing that the date of birth of the opposite

party No.2 was 13.01.1993 and as such, he was not a juvenile on the date of

incident i.e. 07.05.2012. It was submitted that the opposite party / accused

has studied in Primary pathshala, Oan, and according to School leaving

certificate of Primary pathshala, Oan, the date of birth of opposite party no.

2/ accused is 13.01.1993. It has been argued by learned counsel for the

revisionist that the impugned orders are against facts and law and thus liable

to be set aside.

4.

Learned AGA submits that there is no illegality or perversity in the

impugned order.

5.

I have considered rival submissions and perused the record.

6.

Perusal of record shows the revisionist is informant of the case, who

has lodged first information report of this case against the opposite party No.

2 Chandrapal under section 302 IPC regarding murder of his daughter. The

opposite party No. 2 has moved an application before the Juvenile Justice

Board, Etah with prayer that he be declared juvenile, wherein after inquiry

he was declared juvenile vide impugned order dated 02.06.2012. The appeal

against that order has been dismissed vide impugned order dated 07.09.2012.

Perusal of record further shows that the opposite party No. 2 was declared

juvenile on the basis of date of birth shown in school transfer certificate of

the opposite party No.2, issued from ‘Sri Krishna Adarsh Primary School’.

CW 1 Anil Kumar Yadav, who has proved the said certificate has stated that

the opposite party No. 2 / accused was admitted in that school in class IIIrd

and thus, that certificate was not from the School first attended by the

opposite party No. 2.

7.

Here it may be stated that the procedure to be followed for the

determination of age is provided under Rule 12(3)(b) of the 2007 R