1 S.B. CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.98/2008 Anil Kumar & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan Date of Order :: 29-07-2008 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEO NARAYAN THANVI Mr. N.L.Joshi, for the petitioner. Mr. L.R. Upadhyay, PP. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Public Prosecutor. In this case, the trial court i.e. the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar, District Sriganganagar did not consider the petitioners as juvenile on account of there being mention of their age to be 20 years and 19 years in the arrest memo and also not raising objections with regard to the juvenile at the time of remand, framing of charge or at the time of filing of the charge-sheet. The trial court also disbelieved the Board Certificates in which both the petitioners were shown to be juvenile on the ground that the same are not tallying with the admission form. But the learned trial court has not recorded any evidence or conducted any enquiry either medical or otherwise with regard to determination of age of both the petitioners when an application has been moved at the stage of trial or before that, that the accused are juvenile in the manner provided for under 2 Rule 12(3) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007. Sub-Rule (3) of Rule 12 of the Rules of 2007 reads as under:- “(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 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 declares the age of the juvenile or child. In case exact assessment of the age cannot 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. and, while passing orders in such case shall, after taking into consideration such evidence as may be available, or the medical opinion, as the case may be, record a finding in respect of his age and either of the evidence specified in any of the clauses (a)(i), (ii), (iii) or in the absence whereof, clause (b) shall be conclusive proof of the age as regards such child or the juvenile in conflict with law." 3 Under the above rule, in the absence of matriculation certificate or date of birth certificate from the school first attended or birth certificate of Municipal or Panchayat, the medical opinion will be sought and in case, the exact assessment cannot be done as referred to above, then the Court or the Board, as the case may be, give benefit to the child or juvenile by considering his/her age on lower side within the margin of one year. From the perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has not properly appreciated the provisions contained in Rule 12(3) of the Rules. The revision petition is accordingly allowed. While setting aside the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar dated 17.1.2008, he is directed to conduct fresh inquiry about the age of petitioners in accordance with law and pass appropriate order. [DEO NARAYAN THANVI],J. Praveen