IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.712 of 2008 NITIN KUMAR @ SHYAMU Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ANR. ----------- 3. 23-Jan-09 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for Opposite Party No.2. The petitioner has filed this Revision Application against the order dated 18.6.2008 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-cum-FTC III, Sitamarhi, in Sessions Trial No.403 of 2005/215 of 2005, in connection with Sahiyara P.S.Case No.6 of 2005 whereby the Trial Court rejected his petition dated 10.8.2007 to declare him juvenile. The informant, Chakradhar Prasad Singh, O.P.No.2, gave his fardbeyan on 14.2.2005 to the aforesaid Police Station alleging therein that this petitioner assaulted his sons, Amit Kumar and Alok Kumar by means of knife. He further stated in his fardbeyan that his son, Amit Kumar, received grievous injury at his neck and died on the spot. After the investigation, the police submitted the charge-sheet, thereafter the cognizance was taken and the case was committed 2 to the Court of sessions. Ultimately, it came to the file of Addl. Sessions Judge-cum-FTC III for trial being Sessions Trial No.403 of 2005 /215 of 2006. On 10.8.2007, the petitioner filed a petition before the learned Trial Court to declare him juvenile stating in the aforesaid petition that his date of birth is 8.1.1988 as per School Admission Register and Matriculation Certificate and as such he was much below 18 years on the date of occurrence which was 14.2.2005. The petitioner in support of his contention brought on record the certificate granted by the Secondary School Examination Board and the Admit-card & School Leaving Certificate issued by the Headmaster. The Opp. Party contested the claim of the petitioner and submitted that he was a major on the date of the occurrence and the claim of the juvenile is belated one. The Opp. Party filed a birth certificate issued by the concerned Registrar in which the date of birth has been shown as 8.2.1985. He further submitted that the Medical Board conducted on 29.11.2007 opined that the age of the petitioner is above 20 years. No oral evidence was adduced by other side. 3 After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, learned Trial Court vide impugned order dated 18.6.2008 rejected the application of the petitioner to declare him juvenile. The learned Trial Court came to the aforesaid decision mainly on the basis of certificate of birth issued by the Registrar. Learned counsel for the petitioner by referring to Section 7A of the Juvenile Justice (Care Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as “the Juvenile Act, 2000”)stated that the claim of the juvenile can be taken up at any stage. There could be no dispute to the aforesaid submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner. He further submits that Rule 12 prescribes the procedure to be followed in determination of age. It could be expedient to quote Section 12(3) of the Juvenile Justice Rule, 2007, which reads as follows :- “12(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, as the case may be, the Committee by seeking evidence by obtaining- (a) (i)the matriculation or equivalent certificates, if available; and in the absence whereof; (ii)the date of birth certificate from the school (other than a play school) first attended; and in the 4 absence whereof; (iii)the birth certificate given by a corporation or a municipal authority or a panchayat; (b) and only in the absence of either (i), (ii) or (iii) of clause (a) above, 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 can not be done, the Court or the Board or, as the case may be, the Committee, for the reasons to be recorded by them, may, if considered necessary, give benefit to the child or juvenile by considering his/her age on lower side within the margin of one year.” Learned counsel submits that as per Sub Rule-3 of Rule 12, Matriculation Certificate would have primacy over other certificates enumerated in Clause (a) + (b) of Rule 12(3). He submits that the Trial Court nowhere states that the certificates either Matriculation Certificate or the certificate granted by the Board or the School Leaving Certificate or the Admission Register is a forged document. He further submits that even as per Medical Board, the age of the petitioner would be 17 years and 02 months on date of occurrence; or in any case not more than 18 years. The petitioner submits that the Birth Certificate is of Gram Panchayat and as such it 5 alone can not prevail over matriculation and other certificates granted by Board & School. Section 49 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000 provides for determination of age if a person appears to be juvenile. The competent authority can make due inquiry to assess the age of such person and shall take such evidence as may be necessary. Both matriculation certificates which are of the date prior to occurrence as well as opinion of Medical Board would show that the petitioner was under 18 years on date of occurrence, whereas birth certificate granted by Registrar on basis of Gram Panchayat Register shows the petitioner as major. The Trial court without assigning any reason has discarded the matriculation certificate and opinion of Medical Board. As such the impugned order dated 18.6.2008 passed by Trial Court is not sustainable in eye of law as such the same is set aside. In view of circumstances noticed above, this Court finds it appropriate to remit the matter back to the Trial Court for fresh consideration of the issue, in question, within 6 two months from the date of receipt/production of the copy of this order. It will be open to the parties to produce evidence in support of their claim. With the aforesaid direction, the impugned order dated 18.6.2008 is set aside. chauhan (S. P. Singh, J.)