- (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) This appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge of the Patna High Court whereby he dismissed the revision filed by the appellant under Section 53 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (for short, 'the Act') and confirmed the order passed by Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Bettiah, West Champaran.
(3.) The appellant is father of Pranab Prabhat alias Rishu, who is said to have been killed by respondent No.2 - Munnu Rai alias Vivek Kumar Rai. On 16.3.2007, the appellant filed first information report with the allegation that his son had been killed by respondent No.2. The latter surrendered on 2.5.2007 and claimed that he is a juvenile. With a view to ascertain the age of respondent No.2, a Medical Board was constituted under the Chairmanship of Civil Surgeon. The report of the Medical Board was placed before Juvenile Justice Board, Bettiah (for short, 'the JJ Board'). After considering the evidence produced by the parties, the JJ Board held that the date of birth of respondent No.2 entered in the school records was not reliable. The JJ Board then adverted to the report of the Medical Board and observed: "In this connection now only the aforesaid report of the medical board constituted under the chairmanship of Civil Surgeon, Bettiah is there which was constituted on the direction of the Juvenile Justice Board which is on record and which has been perused and examined. In this regard the medical board has estimated the age of the juvenile Munnu Rai to be 17-18 years. In this regard all the three members of the juvenile justice board have studied the physical features of juvenile Munnu Rai minutely. Seeing the report of the board and the physical features I come to the conclusion that the age of Juvenile Munnu Rai @ Vivek Kumar Rai is above 20 years and is not less......".;