The court affirmed that age determination for juveniles must heavily rely on credible documentary evidence, with the 10th-grade mark-sheet holding precedence.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA th ON THE 17 OF JULY, 2025 CRIMINAL REVISION No. 882 of 2025 VIDHI KA ULANGHAN KARNE WALA BALAK DWARA SARPARAST PITA AGE 15 YRS 7 MONTH Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Appearance:

Shri Rudra Pratap Singh Kaurav - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Anurag Sharma - PP for the respondent/State.

ORDER Heard.

This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2015 (hereinafter would be referred as the `Act of 2015') being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 23.01.2025 passed by XI Additional Sessions Judge Gwalior in Cr.Appeal No.20 of 2025, whereby the learned Judge has rejected the appeal filed by the petitioner by affirming the impugned order dated 09.11.2024 passed by the Principal Judge, Juvenile Justice Board, Gwalior, treating the petitioner as juvenile.

In brief, the facts of the case are that, on 28.03.2024 at about 6.30 pm, the petitioner has informed her father that someone has killed Baba and confined him in a dark room. Thereafter, on 29.03.2024 at about 1 AM when he came to his house, he found that no one was there and when he opened the box kept in his father's room for searching some papers, he found dead body of his father inside the box. Then, he informed the police. Accordingly, the offence under section 302 Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAM KUMAR and 201 of IPC has been registered at PS Madhav Ganj Gwalior and final report has been filed against the petitioner before the Juvenile Justice Board, Gwalior. The Principal Judge Juvenile Justice Board, Gwalior under section 15 of the Act 2015 after inquiry, held that at the time of incident age of petitioner was more-than 16 years and she had committed serious offence under section 302 of IPC and at the time of incident, she was capable to know the circumstances of the offence and its results, therefore, her trial should be conducted treating her as an adult. Accordingly, the matter has been committed to the Principal, District and Sessions Judge, Gwalior.

Being aggrieved by the aforesaid, the petitioner preferred an appeal but the same has also been dismissed vide order dated 23.01.2025 by affirming the order passed by the Juvenile Justice Board. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has preferred this revision before this court.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that in the 10th class mark-

sheet, the date of birth of the petitioner has been wrongly mentioned as 06.02.2008. Actually, her birth certificate has been issued in the year 2008 in which, her date of birth is mentioned as 18.09.2008. The same has also been mentioned in the mark-sheet of the 5th and 8th Board examination. Therefore, the finding given by the Juvenile Justice Board regarding her date of birth is erroneous. She was juvenile of 15 yeas at the time of incident. Hence, he prays that the impugned order passed by both the courts below be set-aside and the matter be remitted back to the Juvenile Justice Board for its trial.

Per contra, learned counsel for the state opposed the prayer and prays for its rejection by supporting the impugned order passed by both the courts below.

Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record.

Having considered rival submissions, perusal of the documents filed on Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAM KUMAR record as also the aforesaid dictum of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sri Ganesh Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and another, reported as 2017 (1) MPWN 36 , the relevant para 11 of which reads as under:-

"11. In the present case the trial court took into account the documentary evidence as contemplated in the statutory provisions and returned a finding that the date of birth of the appellant was 19.10.1991. During the course of its judgment the High Court could not find such conclusion to be vitiated on any ground. In the face of the relevant documentary evidence, t