IMPORTANT POINTS
In deter mining juvenility Matriculation certificate has to be given precedence. But in absence of or in case matriculation certificate is incorrect, other documents can be relied upon, in the same hierarchy.
Procedures laid down in CrPC cannot be imported while making an enquiry in regard to a claim of juvenility.
Directing an inquiry is different than declaring the accused to be a juvenile. In directing the enquiry Court simply records a prima facie conclusion while in the latter a declaration is made on the basis of evidence. Hence the approach at the stage of directing the inquiry has to be more liberal.

JUDGMENT :

DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.

1. The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad allowed a claim of juvenility in a decision of its Single Judge dated 14 November 2018. The judgment is challenged in this appeal(Criminal Revision 2952 of 2017) by the complainant.

2. On 28 October 2015, a First Information Report was lodged by the appellant at PS Ekka in the district of Firozabad in Uttar Pradesh which was registered as Case Crime 252 of 2016 under Section 364 A of the Penal Code. The allegation is that the appellant received a call on his cell phone from an unknown number and the caller wished to speak to his son, claiming to be his teacher. The appellant’s son who was about thirteen years old was studying in the eighth standard in a public school in Shikohabad. After calling back on the number, the appellant’s son left his shop after a conversation, never to return. The victim is alleged to have been murdered after a demand for ransom. His body was allegedly found in a canal. The second respondent was arrested during the course of the investigation.

3. On 9 December 2015, the accused filed an application claiming to be a juvenile on the date of the incident under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2000(Act of 2000). He submitted that on the date of the alleged offence he was sixteen years ten months and eleven days old. In support of the claim, he relied on a matriculation certificate issued by the Central Board of Secondary Education(CBSE), Delhi reflecting his date of birth as 17 December 1998.

4. By an order dated 2 July 2016 the Juvenile Justice Board(JJB) allowed the application of the second respondent – accused and declared him to be a juvenile on the date of the alleged offence. The appellant instituted a criminal appeal before the Court of the Sessions Judge, Firozabad(Criminal Appeal 41 of 2016). On 16 September 2016, the Sessions Judge remanded the case to the JJB for determination of the age of the second respondent upon medical examination. The Chief Medical Officer, Agra constituted a Medical Board which in its report dated 19 November 2016 found that the age of the second respondent was about nineteen years. Aggrieved by the order of the Sessions Judge, the second respondent filed a revision(Revision Petition 3246 of 2016) before the High Court which was dismissed as withdrawn on 4 January 2017. He instituted a petition(Petition No 12801 of 2017) under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973(CrPC) which was disposed of by the High Court on 17 April 2017 directing the early disposal of the pending application of the second respondent. On 1 July 2017, the JJB rejected the claim of juvenility on the basis of the medical report. The JJB also observed that the second respondent had filed an application for obtaining a driving license and an Aadhaar card in which he had declared his date of birth as 17 December 1995. On this basis, the JJB held that the second respondent was an adult on the date of the incident. The second respondent filed an appeal against the order of the JJB before the Sessions Judge, Firozabad(Criminal Appeal 27 of 2017). The Sessions Judge rejected the appeal by an order dated 2 August 2017 observing, on the basis of the decision of this Court in Prag Bhati v State of Uttar Pradesh((2016) 12 SCC 744) that the credibility and authenticity of the documents depends upon the circumstances of each case and that in a case involving conflicting school certificates, a further inquiry would be required. The Sessions Judge also placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Ramdeo Chauhan alias Raj Nath v State of Assam((2001) 5 SCC 714).

5. Aggrieved by the decision of the Sessions Judge, the second respondent moved the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in a Criminal Revision. The High Court allowed the revision and declared that on the date of the alleged offence, the second respondent was a minor. In coming to this conclusion, the High Court adverted to the provisi