Advocates:
['Raj Kamal', '', 'Digvijay Narayan Singh', 'AMBIKA BHAGATSPL PP', '', 'Ajit Kumar Singh']

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Revision No.174 of 2016

======================================================

1. Anjani Devi, W/o Sahadeo Paswan, Resident of Ghorghat, P.S.-

Bariyarpur, District- Munger.

2. null null null

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. Pochan Yadav @ Nilesh Yadav, Son of Surendra Yadav, Resident of

Ghorghat, P.S.- Bariyarpur, District- Munger.

.... .... Respondent/s

======================================================

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Digvijay Narayan Singh

With Mr. Raj Kamal

For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sadanand Paswan (Spl.Pp)

For Opposite party No.2 : Mr. Ajit Kumar Singh

======================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI

SHARAN SINGH

ORAL ORDER

4

22-11-2016

1. This criminal revision application filed under

Section 53 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of

Children) Act, 2000 has been preferred by the informant of

Bariyarpur P.S. Case No. 94 of 2014, registered for the

offences punishable under Sections 147,148,149,457,302 of

the Indian Penal Code, Section 27 of the Arms Act and

Section 3(i) (viii) (x) (xi) (xv) of the Scheduled Castes and

Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

2.

She

is

aggrieved

by

an

order,

dated

08.12.2015 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 33 of 2015 by

learned Additional Sessions Judge Ist, Munger, whereby he

has set aside the order of the Juvenile Justice Board, Munger,

2

dated 09.10.2015 and has declared the Opposite party No.2

to be a juvenile. The Juvenile Justice Board had, by the said

order, dated 09.10.2015, upon considering the claim of the

Opposite party No.2, rejected the claim of Opposite party

No.2 of juvenility.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the

petitioner, learned counsel representing the Opposite party

No.2 and learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on

behalf of the State of Bihar.

4. This is not in dispute that Rule 11 of the Bihar

Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules,

2012(Hereinafter referred to as the Bihar J.J. Act)

prescribes the procedure for age determination enquiry. Rule

11 (3) of the Said Rules is relevant and is being extracted

hereinbelow:-

<11(3) In every case concerning a child

or juvenile in conflict with law, the age determination

inquiry shall be conducted by the Court or the Board

or the Committee, as the sae may be, by seeking

evidence by obtaining:

(a) (i) the matriculation or equivalent

certificate, if available; and/or,

(ii) the date of birth certificate from the

school (other than a play school) first attended; and

in the absence whereof;

(iii)

the

birth

certificate

given

by

municipal Corporation or a municipal authority or a

Panchayat; and

(b)

only

in

absence

of

either

(i)

3

and/or(ii) of clause (a) above, or in case the Court or

the Board or the Committee finds it necessary, the

medical

opinion

will

be

sought

from

a

duly

constituted Medical Board, which will declare the age

of the juvenile or child. In case exact assessment of

the age cannot be done, the Court or the Board or,

as the case may be, the Committee, for the reasons

recorded by them, may, if to be considered

necessary, give benefit to the child or juvenile by

considering his/her age on lower side within the

margin of 6 months and, while passing orders in

such case shall, after taking into consideration such

evidence as may be available or the medical opinion

as the case may be, record a finding in respect of his

age and either of the evidence specified in any of the

clauses (a) (i) (iii) or in the absence whereof, clause

(b) shall be proof of the age as regards such child or

the juvenile in conflict with law.=

5. It is evident from Rule 11 that in a case,

the age determination inquiry is to be cond