IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.142 of 2008 DHARMENDRA KUMAR SON OF LATE BALESHWAR PD. R/O- VILLAGE BRANDI, P.S.- RAHUI, DISTT- NALANDA Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. SURAJDEO PASWAN SON OF BALLABH PASWAN, R/O- VILLAGE BRANDI, P.S.- RAHUI, DISTT- NALANDA. ---------- 4 10.03.2011 Heard learned for the petitioner and the State. Informant of Rahui P.S. case No. 116 of 2006 registered under Sections 302/34 IPC, is aggrieved by order dated 19.2.2007 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, F.T.C., Nalanda at Biharsharif on Cr. Appeal No. 172 of 2007/48/2007 whereby the O.P. No. 2 herein has been declared juvenile in terms of the provisions of Juvenile Justice Act 2000. It appears that an F.I.R. was lodged wherein the O.P. No. 2 was made accused. A claim of juvenility was raised on behalf of O.P. No. 2. The matter was inquired into wherein the opinion of the Medical Board was also obtained for determination of age. Certain documents were produced on behalf of the O.P. No. 2 including the admission register of Middle School, Brandi, District- Nalanda according to which his date of birth was 16.3.1989. Witnesses were also examined. The Medical Board submitted its report (Annexure-1) assessing him between 18 to 19 years on the date of report. The informant also produced certain 2 documents including voter list in order to show that he was not juvenile/minor on the date of occurrence i.e.. 27.8.2006. Learned Juvenile Justice Board by order dated 31.8.2007 rejected the said claim observing as under;- “It is essential to mention here that the medical Board has assessed the age of Suryadeo Paswan in between 18-19 years but as per medical jurisprudence the age assessed by the medical Board will be either plus or minus two years but our 22 JJ Rules speaks by margin of one year plus or minus and this case. The concept of lawyer is difficult to be accepted. From physical appearance it is very much evident that bear and moustache have been developed on the person Suryadeo Paswan. Therefore, the age of Suryadeo Paswan is above 18 years on alleged date of occurrence i.e. 27.8.06.” Aggrieved over the said order, the O.P. No. 2 preferred appeal which was considered and disposed by the order impugned. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while assailing the order impugned, submits that learned Juvenile Justice Board had rightly rejected the claim of the O.P. No. 2. Learned Appellate Court has not assigned adequate reasons for allowing the appeal and interfering with the order of learned Juvenile Justice Board. This Court finds from the appellate order that the finding based on assessment of age made by the Board on physical appearance of the opposite party has been given weightage over the material on record. Determination of age 3 of a delinquent is a complex exercise. The Act, therefore, does not lay down any inflexible or fixed norms which could be applied for determining the age of a person. This Legislation has been found by Courts to be a welfare legislation and the effort of the Court should be to see that a juvenile derives full benefits of the provisions of the Act. However, this is subject to one rider that the provisions of the Act should not be allowed to be misused by unscrupulous persons to escape punishment. Reference in this regard may be made to judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Babloo Pasi versus State of Jharkhand since reported in (2008) 13 S.C.C. 133. A Bench of this Court in the case of Dhanjay Singh versus State of Bihar since reported in 2004 (2) PLJR 218 has deprecated ascertainment of age of a juvenile based on personal assessment made by the Court. It has been found therein that true it is that Court is considered to be expert of experts but this principle has its own limitations. Learned Appellate Court in paragraph No. 10 has observed as under: “ From the oral evidence and the Ext. 1 the page No. 29 of Admission Register of year 1993 of the said school, it has also been found that there is no any fact on the record to create any doubt upon the same as discussed above. From the case law referred above of the Hon’ble Apex Court I am also of view that while ascertaining the question of the determination of the age of the accused for the purpose of finding out whether he is juvenile or not a higher technical approach 4 should not be adopted while appreciating the evidence adduced on behalf of the accused in support of the plea that he was a juvenile. And if two views may be possible on the said evidences the Court should lean in favour of holding the accused to be a juvenile in boarder line cases. From the discussions in respect of the report of Medical Board it has already been found three views after minus and plus of one year of age 17-18 year i.e. the age of appellant accused may be either 16-17 years or 17-18 year or 18-19 years. Under the circumstances it should be lean in favour of holding the accused to be a juvenile in boarder line cases the age of the appellant-accused is said to be less than 18 years on 27.8.2006 the date of the alleged occurrence of the case. “ Thus, in my view, the order impugned is based on sound reasonings supported by the provisions of law interpreted by superior Courts and do not call for any interference. The application is dismissed. pkj (Kishore K. Mandal, J)