1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Revision No. 273 of 2011 Sachin Kumar S/o Shri Ajit Singh R/o Village Tikola Kalan District Haridwar, Uttarakhand …..…Revisionist Versus 1. State of Uttarakhand through Standing Counsel Criminal, for the State of Uttarakhand 2. Mohit Kumar S/o Bhim Singh R/o Village Jankheda Police Station Rampur Maniharan District Saharanpur, Uttar Pradesh ……….Opposite Parties Mr. Ashok Singh, Advocate, present for the Revisionist. Mr. Hariom Bhakuni, Brief Holder, present for the State. Hon'ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. This revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 15.10.2011, passed by Additional Sessions Judge/ Fast Track Court, II, Hardwar, whereby said court has affirmed the order dated 03.01.2008, passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Hardwar. By the order dated 03.01.2008, Juvenile Justice Board, declined to declare the revisionist as juvenile. 2 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties, and perused the papers on record. 3. Brief facts of the case are that crime no. 5 of 2007, was registered at Police Station Manglaur, District Hardwar, relating to offences punishable under section 304B, 201 IPC. Revisionist Sachin Kumar, son of Ajit Singh, resident of village Tikola, was husband of the deceased. He took a plea before the Juvenile Justice Board that he (Sachin Kumar) is minor, and should be declared juvenile. After considering the certificate of matriculation issued by National Open School, the Juvenile Justice Board, Hardwar, vide its order dated 21.06.2008, declared Sachin Kumar as juvenile. However, it appears that complainant (Mohit Kumar) filed an appeal before the Sessions Judge, Hardwar, which was allowed vide order dated 24.07.2008, and it was directed that the Juvenile Justice Board should give opportunity to the complainant to be heard before declaring Sachin Kumar (accused) as Juvenile. Learned Sessions Judge, Hardwar, vide his order dated 24.07.2008, passed in criminal appeal no. 26 of 2008, set aside the order dated 21.06.2008, earlier passed by the Juvenile Justice Board. It appears that thereafter both the parties were heard, evidence was led by the parties. 3 The Juvenile Justice Board, vide its order dated 22.10.2008, considered all documents on record, and also considered the medical report, whereafter it was declared that accused Sachin Kumar (present revisionist) is not juvenile, and his application declaring him juvenile was dismissed. Aggrieved by said order, accused Sachin Kumar filed criminal appeal no. 61 of 2008, before the Sessions Judge, Hardwar. After hearing the parties, said appeal was decided vide impugned order dated 15.10.2011, passed by Additional Sessions Judge/ II Fast Track Court, Hardwar, affirming the order of Juvenile Justice Board, rejecting the application of the accused to declare him juvenile. 4. Learned counsel for the revisionist argued before this Court that in the matriculation certificate issued by the National Open School, date of birth of accused Sachin Kumar is 02.07.1989. It is pleaded that in the light of Rule 22 of Rules (of Uttarakhand) framed under Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, the Board has committed error of law by ignoring the matriculation certificate. However, on carefully going through the impugned order read with the documents filed with the affidavits with the parties, this Court comes to the 4 conclusion that the the Juvenile Justice Board has found that the actual date of birth of the accused Sachin Kumar is 02.07.1987, and there was cutting in the admission register whereby date of birth is substituted as 02.07.1989. Not only this, it is also found that even in the words there is cutting, and instead of SATTASI (eighty seven) word NAWASI (eighty nine) has been substituted. Therefore, after considering the medical report of the Chief Medical Officer, the Juvenile Justice Board found that the genuine date of birth of the accused Sachin Kumar is 02.07.1987, and not 02.07.1989, and he was major on the date of incident i.e., 23.01.2007, when his wife Anita died alleged unnatural death. 5. Mr. Ashok Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist drew attention of this court to the copy of transfer certificate, identity card, and other papers, and argued that in all these documents date of birth of the revisionist shown as 02.07.1989. However, all these documents are subsequent to the alleged interpolation found made in the admission register of the school. Apart from this, since after appreciating evidence on record, two courts below have given concurrent finding of fact that accused Sachin Kumar (revisionist) was not juvenile on the 5 date of incident (21.03.2007), this Court in its revisional jurisdiction cannot hair split the evidence to hold that concurrent finding recorded by the courts below after discussing the evidence at length, is wrong 6. Therefore, without expressing any opinion as to final merits of the case, the revisionist is facing before the trial court, this revision is dismissed. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Parul 26.12.2011