The inquiry into juvenility must prioritize documented evidence over medical evaluations, ensuring adherence to specific statutory procedures.

JUDGMENT

G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)

1. By way of this Revision Petition, the Petitioner Aakash takes exception to the order dated 24.08.2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ), Dwarka whereby the order dated 31.03.2012 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) holding the Petitioner Aakash to be a juvenile was reversed and the Petitioner was held not to be a juvenile.

2. FIR No.63/2011 under Section 363/366/376(2)(f)/308 IPC, Police Station Sagarpur was registered against the Petitioner. The Petitioner was declared to be a juvenile by an order dated 08.04.2011, while the case was at the stage of defence’s evidence. The order dated 08.04.2011 was assailed in an Appeal before the learned ASJ. By an order dated 10.10.2011 the matter was remanded to the JJB with the direction to conduct a fresh inquiry into the age and date of birth of the Petitioner.

The JJB conducted a fresh inquiry to determine the question of Petitioner’s juvenility and held that his date of birth was to be taken as 05.04.1995. Consequently, on the date of commission of the offence the Petitioner was held to be 15 years 11 months and 4 days and thus, a juvenile under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2000 (the Act of 2000).

3. The Complainant, that is, the Prosecutrix through her natural guardian successfully assailed the order dated 09.04.2012 passed by the JJB. While reversing the order dated 31.03.2012, the learned ASJ was swayed by the fact that the date of birth, that is, 05.04.1995 mentioned in the MCD Primary School, Dabri at the time of the admission was only by approximation on the basis of the Affidavit Ex.CW-1/1 sworn in by the Petitioner’s father Malkhan Singh. Thus, the learned ASJ preferred the ossification test according to which the Petitioner was more than 22 years on the date of commission of the offence. Paras 9 to 12 of the impugned order are extracted hereunder:-

“9. In the instant case, it is not disputed that the respondent No.2 had sought admission for the first time, in MCD Primary School, Dabri, in the records of which his date of birth has been mentioned as 05.04.1995 vide Ex. CW1/A. However, it is to be noted that the father of the respondent No.2 had not produced any documentary proof regarding the date of birth of respondent No.2 in the aforesaid school. The school had recorded the aforesaid date of birth of respondent No.2 merely on the basis of an affidavit sworn by the father of respondent No.2 (Ex. CW1/C) which also is un-attested. Therefore, it is manifests that there was no reliable and authentic document produced before the school authorities regarding date of birth of respondent No.2 and his date of birth has been recorded as 05.04.1995 merely on the basis of the representation of his father and un-attested affidavit (shapathpatra) filed by him. For these reasons, the date of birth of respondent No.2 mentioned in his school records cannot be taken to be true and correct.”

10. On the contrary, as per the report submitted by the Medical Board, which conducted the ossification test upon the respondent No.2, his age on the date of commission of offence comes to between 21 to 24 years. As noted herein above, the doctors who conducted the ossification test of respondent No.2 have been examined before the Board. They have been cross examined in detail and nothing contrary has come out in their cross examination. CW-2 Dr. Sameer Dhari, SR Dental Department, DDU Hospital had conducted the clinical dental examination of respondent No.2 and according to him, he had 32 permanent teeth in his mouth. He further stated that the third molar had erupted in all corners and that the third molar does not erupt before the age of 17 years. Doctor Sameer Raghuvanshi who had