IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1505 of 2010 NITESH KUMAR SINGH, SON OF SRI BHARAT SINGH VILLAGE CHAINPUR P.S. TARAIYA, SARAN. …PETITIONER Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. PARMANAND SINGH, SON OF LATE RAM PRAVESH SINGH, VILLAGE CHAINPUR P.S. TARAIYA, SARAN RESPONDENTS For the petitioner : Mr. Bishwajeet Singh For the State :Mr. Matloob Ram, APP For the informant :Mr. Awadhesh Kumar Singh ----------- 03. 22.02.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the informant and the State. The petitioner is an accused facing charge punishable under sections 363,364 and 302/34 IPC. He is aggrieved by the appellate order dated 16.09.2010, passed in Cr. appeal No. 19/10 (Parmanand Singh vs. State of Bihar & Anr.), whereby the appellate court allowed the appeal preferred by the informant of the said case and declared the petitioner major on the date of occurrence disagreeing with the majority view recorded by the learned J.J. Board. On 04.03.2010, the petitioner along with other accused surrendered in the case and prayed for bail in which it was asserted that he is juvenile on the date of occurrence. Learned Principal Magistrate by order dated 04.03.2010, initiated enquiry in terms of section 7A of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). According to the petitioner, he was admitted to the 2 school directly in class 7 and his date of birth recorded therein was 30.06.1994. The date of occurrence in the present case is 04.11.2009. It appears that such claim was raised on the basis of the school leaving certificate issued from the school in question. In course of enquiry, the headmaster of the school was produced as a witness who appeared along with school admission register. The deposition was recorded. The Principal Magistrate having found apparent discrepancy in the deposition of the headmaster and in the school admission register produced by the witness, directed for constitution of a Medical Board for assessment of the age vide order dated 22.03.2010. Accordingly, a Medical Board was constituted who medically examined the petitioner and after conducting such examination/radiological test, a report was submitted on 06.04.2010 (Annexure-3), whereby he was found aged between 20-21 years on the date of report (06.04.2010). Having regard to the materials brought in course of enquiry as also the report of the Medical Board, learned Principal Magistrate by order dated 03.05.2010 (Annexure-4) found and held him major on the date of occurrence. It was found by him that from materials brought on record including the school admission register and the deposition of the headmaster of the said school it cannot be said that the petitioner first attended the said school wherein he was admitted directly in class 7. The Principal Magistrate thus relying on the report of Medical Board, adjudged him major on the date of occurrence. The two other members of the Board, 3 however, took a different view. Based on the materials on record, it was found by them that the materials brought on record would show that the petitioner was first admitted directly in class 7 in the said school wherein his date of birth was recorded as 30.06.1994. The other members of the Board also took into consideration the fact that in assessing the age based on the Medical Board report certain relaxation has to be granted in view of law settled in this regard. Accordingly, the two other learned members of the Board found and held him juvenile on the date of occurrence. Aggrieved by the aforesaid adjudication made by the learned J.J. Board, the informant (o.p.no.2) preferred appeal which was considered and allowed by the order impugned leading to filing of the present application. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that from materials brought on record in course of enquiry conducted in terms of the provisions of the Act the school admission register produced by the headmaster should have been accepted and the date of birth recorded therein should have been relied upon by the appellate court for holding that the petitioner was juvenile on the date of occurrence. It is contended that two other members of learned J.J. Board have already taken the said view based on the materials on record. It is contended that even going by the Medical Board report, the petitioner would be entitled to be declared juvenile since two years relaxation has to be granted while considering such opinion of the experts concerning assessment of age. 4 Learned counsel appearing on behalf of o.p.no.2, on the other hand, submits that learned J.J. Board after having found apparent inconsistency in deposition of the headmaster read in the light of the deficiency found in the school admission register produced by the headmaster of the school, the learned Principal Magistrate did not find the same cogent and reliable inasmuch as it was not found that the petitioner first attended the said school wherein he was admitted directly in class 7. Having found so, the Medical Board was constituted by order dated 22.03.2010 which was not challenged by the petitioner. It is further submitted that the Medical Board found the petitioner aged between 20-21 years. Even if some relaxation is granted to the petitioner in the matter of assessment of age, the petitioner would not be entitled to be declared juvenile on the date of occurrence, i.e. 04.11.2009. Learned APP, appearing on behalf of the State also supported the appellate order. I have considered the submission advanced on behalf of the parties. It appears that after initiating enquiry in terms of the provisions of the Act, the learned Board permitted the petitioner to adduce evidence wherein school leaving certificate along with the headmaster of the school was produced. Learned Principal Magistrate has found several deficiencies in school admission register inasmuch as relevant columns were not filled up by the competent authority and authenticated by the superior officer(s). Learned Principal Magistrate also found that although 5 against the name of the petitioner it was endorsed that this is the first admission signed by the father of the petitioner but then the same was not again authenticated by the headmaster of the school. Having found aforesaid discrepancies in school admission register produced in course of enquiry, in the light of the deposition of the headmaster, the constitution of Medical Board was ordered in presence of the petitioner which was not challenged. Learned appellate court has also taken a view that school leaving certificate produced by the petitioner in support of his age was not issued from the school which was first attended by him. It appears that appellate court thereafter appraised the report of the Medical Board and found that even if some relaxation is granted in assessment of age in favour of the petitioner, he cannot be said to be less than 18 years of age on the date of occurrence. In my considered view, the findings recorded by the court below based on appraisal of materials on record do not call for any interference particularly when it is not the case of the petitioner that enquiry as contemplated under the provisions of the Act read with Rule framed therein was not initiated and concluded by the authorities. There is no merit in this application which is accordingly dismissed. hr ( Kishore K. Mandal )