1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Revision No. 150 of 2010 State of Uttarakhand .……….Revisionist Versus Ankit Thakur, S/o Shri Mithan Singh R/o Badsahi Bagh Ghagora P.S. Gari Cant., Dehradun District Dehradun …………Respondent Smt. Mamta Bisht, A.G.A., present for the revisionist. Shri R.P. Nautiyal, Advocate, present for the respondent. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Delay Condonation application no. 824 of 2010 is allowed. Delay is condoned. 2. Heard. 3. This revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 29.04.2010, passed by Sessions Judge, Dehradun, in Criminal Appeal no. 46 of 2009, whereby said court has allowed the appeal, and declared respondent Ankit Thakur as juvenile. 2 4. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that a First Information Report was lodged regarding an incident dated 26.12.2008, on the basis of which crime no. 97 of 2008, relating to offences punishable under section 302, 120B IPC, was registered at Police Station Mussoorie, District Dehradun. Respondent Ankit Thakur was an accused in said case. He moved an application before Juvenile Justice Board, Dehradun, on 02.01.2009, through his father. The Juvenile Justice Board, vide its order dated 31.03.2009, rejected the application, and declined to declare respondent (Ankit Thakur) as juvenile. Aggrieved by said order Ankit Thakur filed criminal appeal no. 46 of 2009, before the Sessions Judge, Dehradun. Learned Sessions Judge, Dehradun, after hearing the parties, considering the material on record, allowed the appeal and declared Ankit Thakur as juvenile. Hence this revision. 5. It is pleaded on behalf of the revisionist from the family register, and the entries made in the service book of father of the respondent that the respondent was aged 19 years on the date of incident. However, learned counsel for the 3 respondent drew attention of this Court to the fact that the actual date of birth of the respondent is recorded as 07.07.1991, not only in Transfer Certificate issued by the Guru Ram Rai Public School, Dehradun, and character certificate issued by the institution , but also same date of birth is recorded in the certificate issued by Central Board of Secondary Education (for short C.B.S.E.). The appellate court appears to have believed the date of birth recorded in the C.B.S.E., certificate. 6. Attention of this Court is drawn on behalf of the revisionist to the case of Babloo Pasi vs. State of Jharkhand (2008) 13 SCC page 133, and it is pleaded that the appellate court has wrongly believed the age mentioned in the school certificate. I have carefully gone through said case law, and compared the facts of the present case. The above mentioned case, referred on behalf of the revisionist does not rule that the date of birth recorded in the matriculation certificate should be disbelieved as against the other evidence. There is nothing on the record which shows that certificate issued by C.B.S.E., in favour of the respondent, is forged one. Rather, the same appears to have been 4 corroborated from the date of birth mentioned in the transfer certificate, and character certificate issued by the institutions where the respondent studied. In the opinion of this Court, the appellate court has taken a right approach that date of birth mentioned in the the matriculation certificate/ C.B.S.E., certificate which is supported by other documentary evidence on record is much more reliable piece of evidence for determination of age of the accused as against the medical evidence or some transfer certificate of a non-recognized primary school. 7. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dehradun, suffers from no illegality, and this revision is liable to be dismissed, and accordingly the revision is dismissed. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Parul 01.08.2011