- (1.) KRISHNA Kumar, J. This revision has been filed against the order dated 18-9-1999 whereby the appeal was rejected against the order dated 5-8-1999 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate rejecting the plea of the revisionist being juvenile. Learned Counsel for the revisionist contended that in the school certificate, the applicant was mentioned as 16 years of age. It is further contended that the entry of Kutumb Register was not reli able and when the medical report was that he was 19 years of age, giving the margin, he could be below 16 years of age. In the High School mark-sheet, the date was mentioned as 15- 8-1983 while in the Kutumb Register the date was mentioned as 1- 7-1978, it is contended that the entry in the Kutumb Register cannot be relied upon. Learned Magistrate relied upon the opinion of the doctor who had stated that accused was 19 years of age at the time of the occurrence, even if two years margin is given, still revisionist could not be held as Juvenile. Contention of the learned Coun sel for the revisionist is that revisionist was about 19 years of age and therefore, he could also be 15 years and two years margin be also given, is not convincing. The mar gin of two years can be given only in respect of the age given by the doctor as 19 years. Learned lower Court relied upon the entry of the Kutumb Register in support of the medical evidence. Learned lower Court, however, has relied upon the case law of AIR 1991 SC page 438, whereby the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that where there are School certificate and medical certificate, the medical report shall be given preference.
(2.) FROM the order of the learned lower Court, it is made out that both the Courts below did not rely upon the School Certificate because in the Kutumb Register the date of birth was mentioned as 1-7-1978 and in the School certificate the date of birth was mentioned as 15-8-1983. It is clear that the age were men tioned in the Kutumb Register as well as School register only on imagination and as such the dates were different and in view of the great difference between the two, a proper course for the learned lower Court was to obtain the medical opinion. Learned Counsel for the revisionist plac ing reliance upon case law agreed before me that the date of birth recorded in High School Certificate will prevail over other evidence. In 1999 Prayag Nirai Patrika page 194, the doctor's report was not relied upon on the grounds that there could be difference of one or two years on either way and the accused shall be entitled for the benefit in the case of margin. How ever, in this case, the medical opinion was that accused was 19years of age and, even if two years margin is given in favour of the accused, still the revisionist was 7 years of age at the time of offence. In 1991 Crlj page 1370, it was held that if there were conflicting evidence on record from two schools, the medical report should be relied upon. In this case as earlier stated the age in school register must be based upon entry of birth in Kutumb Register and because both were conflicting none can be relied upon. In view of the facts discussed above I am convinced that learned lower Court committed no illegality in accepting the medical report. The entries in the school certificate cannot be relied upon. I do not find any force in the revision, it is hereby rejected. Revision rejected. .;