Hon’ble Subhash Vidyarthi J.

1.

Heard Sri Ajay Kumar, the learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri

Anurag Verma, the learned AGA-I for the State and Sri Santosh

Kumar Tripathi, the learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2.

2.

By means of the instant revision filed under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C.,

the revisionist has challenged validity of an order dated 01.12.2020

passed by the Additional Session Judge/Special Judge POCSO Act,

Lucknow in Criminal Appeal No. 251 of 2020 whereby the appeal

was allowed, the order dated 09.10.2020 passed by the Juvenile

Justice Board in Misc. Case No. 11/2020 arising out of Case Crime

No. 2013 of 2015, under Section 302/120B IPC, Police Station

Chinhat, Lucknow, was set aside and the matter was remitted to the

Juvenile Justice Board to decide the age of the delinquent on the basis

of his date of birth mentioned in his educational certificate, unless the

same is not believable for any cogent reason, in accordance with the

provision contained in Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015.

The revisionist has also challenged validity of the order dated

22.12.2020 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board in the aforesaid case

Page 1 of 11

deciding the claim of juvenility of the accused in furtherance of the

remand order dated 01.12.2020 and holding him to be a juvenile.

3.

Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the revisionist had filed FIR

No. 192/2015 in Police Station Chinhat, Lucknow under Sections 302,

120-B IPC against the respondent no. 2 and his father Awadh Ram,

alleging that the opposite party no. 2 is uncle of the revisionist, the

revisionist’s father had sold away some land for a very meager

consideration, due to which the revisionist was annoyed and he came

to the complainant’s house at about 01:30 p.m. on 18.05.2015 and

asked the revisionist’s father that the temple’s priest was calling him

and he took the revisionist’s father with him. The revisionist and his

brother were also following them and they saw that the opposite party

no. 2 assaulted the revisionist’s father with a Banka (a sharp edged

tool) on his neck. The revisionist alleged that the opposite party no. 2

had killed his father under a conspiracy with the father of the accused.

4.

The opposite party no. 2 claimed that he was a juvenile whereas the

revisionist opposed this claim. The juvenile justice board decided this

issue by means of an order dated 09.10.2020 wherein it is recorded

that the headmistress of Primary School Saraisheikh, Chinhat had

produced the original admission form, transfer certificate and

admission register before the Juvenile Justice Board and had stated

that as per the aforesaid documents, the date of birth of the opposite

party no. 2 is 07.07.2002. However, the headmistress of the aforesaid

school appeared again and stated that the date of birth of the

revisionist as entered in the school records is 12.07.1997 and she

stated that earlier she had erroneously produced the documents of

another student Shahiba Khatoon.

5.

The revisionist filed an application for summoning the parivar register

of the respondent no. 2. He submitted copies of voter list of Gram

Panchayat Saraiksheikh as per which the age of the opposite party no.

2 was 23 years. The revisionist also produced a list of Pradhan Mantri

Jan Aryogya beneficiaries which mentioned the age of the opposite

party no. 2 to be 26 years.

Page 2 of 11

6.

The board allowed the application for summoning of pariwar register

and the Gram Panchayat Vikas Adhikari, Gram Panchayat Saraisheikh

Block Chinhat Lucknow appeared before the Board and produced

pariwar register, in which the date of birth/ age of the revisionist was

mentioned as 17 years. However, the said witness stated that he does

not know as to when this entry was made in the register.

7.

The Juvenile Justice Board took into consideration the discrepancy in

the date of birth of the opposite party no. 2 mentioned in various

records and found that his date of birth mentioned in the educational

documents i.e.