IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.207 of 2011 Rajesh Mishra son of Baliram Mishra, resident of village- Hasanpur, P. S. Kotwa, Distt.- Motihari. … Petitioner. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Smt. Paspati Devi w/o Harish Chandra Prasad Yadav, resident of village Konhwa, P. S. Kotwa, District- East Champaran. …. Opposite parties. ----------- 3. 09.08.2011 The accused-petitioner has preferred this revision application against the order dated 11.1.2011 passed by learned Sessions Judge, East Champaran, Motihari in Cr. Revision No. 192 of 2010 by which the order dated 15th June 2010 passed by learned Juvenile Justice Board, Motihari in Case No. 560 of 2010 arising out of Kotwa P. S. Case No. 12 of 2010 under Section 302/34 I.P.C., has been set aside. The informant lodged an FIR on 1.2.2010 stating therein that on 30.01.2010, her son Manoj Kumar had gone to play Cricket and during the game scuffle took place between the petitioner and Manoj. In the meantime, one Dukhi Singh along with Surendra Mishra went there and enquired about the scuffle, hearing the reason Dukhi Singh caught hold Manoj and the petitioner assaulted Manoj on his head. 2 Manoj was taken to the hospital but he succumbed to injuries. After investigation charge-sheet was submitted against the petitioner under Section 302 I.P.C.. During trial a petition was filed before Juvenile Justice Board to declare the petitioner as Juvenile. After holding enquiry, the Juvenile Justice Board declared the petitioner as Juvenile. The informant filed Cr. Revision No. 192 of 2010 in the Court of learned Sessions Judge. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, he has been pleased to set aside the order dated 15.6.2010 passed by learned Juvenile Justice Board and the Juvenile Justice Board has been directed to pass a fresh order with respect to juvenility of the accused- petitioner after giving an opportunity to the informant/prosecution to lead evidence. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that admittedly the date of occurrence is 30.1.2010. According to first attended original admission register of the school and the school leaving certificate, the date of birth of the petitioner is 5.1.1995. The informant/opposite party no. 2 has filed objection on 18.5.2010 to the petition filed by 3 the petitioner for declaration of his juvenility. The informant-opposite party no.2 has disputed the age of the petitioner and sought time to produce her evidence in support of her contention, but in spite of several adjournments, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced or produced. After enquiry the petitioner was declared a juvenile under the provision laid down in the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children ) Act, 2000 and Rules. He has further submitted that it appears from the impugned order itself that accused petitioner in his petition has taken a plea that on the date of occurrence he was below 18 years of age. His date of birth is 5.1.1995 and as such on the date of occurrence he was 15 years of age. Accoding to the informant, the date of birth of accused- petitioner is 25.10.1992 in the school admission register of Hasanpur Primary School and the Juvenile Justice Board did not take pain to get the accused examined by Medical Board. He has also contended that admittedly the occurrence is 30.1.2010. Even if the date 4 of birth given by the informant as 25.10.1992 is taken to be true, even then the petitioner is a juvenile. He has further submitted that the report of the medical board is not at all required in view of the provisions made in the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007. Learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 has submitted that the impugned order has been passed after hearing both the parties and it does not require any interference, but he could not controvert the contention of the petitioner that even if according to the informant the date of birth of the petitioner is 25.10.1992, even then the petitioner is a juvenile. After hearing learned counsel for both the parties and on perusal of the material on record it appears that date of occurrence is 30.1.2010. The date of birth of the petitioner according to school certificate is 5.1.1995. According to the informant, the date of birth of the petitioner mentioned in the admission register of Hasanpur Primary School is 25.10.1992. In that view of the matter also, on the date of occurrence the age of the 5 petitioner is below 18 years. According to Rule 12(3) (a) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, the date of birth mentioned in the matriculation or equivalent certificate or the date of birth certificate from the school first attended, and in absence thereof the birth certificate given by a corporation or a municipal authority or a panchayat has to be accepted and in absence of all the three, the medical opinion will be sought from a duly constituted medical board. More or less the same provision is under Rule 22 of Bihar Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2003. Accordingly to Rule 22(5) of Bihar Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2003, the medical opinion regarding the age will be taken only in absence of; (i) a birth certificate given by a corporation or a municipal authority; or (ii) a date of birth certificate from the school first attended; or (iii) matriculation or equivalent certificate, if available. It appears from the order dated 15.6.2010 passed by learned Juvenile Justice Board that informant had filed objection dated 18.5.2010 regarding the age of the accused but 6 even after having being given sufficient time, no document was filed on behalf of the informant. After considering the materials on record, learned Juvenile Justice Board has held that the age of the petitioner was less than 18 years on the date of occurrence and as such he was declared a juvenile. Considering the facts and circumstances stated above, in my opinion, the impugned order passed by learned Sessions Judge, East Champaran Motihari is not fit to be sustained. The impugned order is set aside. The order dated 15.6.2010 passed by learned Juvenile Justice Board, Motihari, is restored. In the result, this revision application is allowed. Kanchan (Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)