- (1.) This Criminal Revision under, has been filed by Atul Singh Sengar, agaisnt order dated 3.7.2019, passed by Sessions Judge, Auraiya, in Criminal Appeal No. 13/2019 (State Vs. Atul Singh Sengar), arising out of Case Crime No. 132/2017, under Sections 498A, 304-B I.P.C. and 3/4 of D.P. Act, P.S. Auraiya, District Auraiya, with a prayer for setting aside impugned order, whereby, order of Juvenile Justice Board, Auraiya, dated 16.4.2019, has been set aside.
(2.) Learned counsel, for the revisionist, argued that Juvenile Justice Board, Auraiya, vide order dated 16.4.2019, determined revisionist accused- Atul Singh Sengar, juvenile under conflict with law and it was on the basis of date of birth entered in matriculation Mark-sheet-cum-Certificate, wherein date of birth was 10.8.1999. This occurrence was of 27.1.2017, hence, on the date of occurrence, revisionist was of age 17 years, 5 months and 17 days, i.e. below 18 years. Hence, was juvenile in conflict with law. Against this order, an appeal before Sessions Judge, Auraiya No. 13 of 2019 (State Vs. Atul Singh Sengar) was filed, wherein, impugned order of Juvenile Justice Board, Auraiya, was set aside. Accordingly, appeal was allowed. The date of birth entered in Basic School, was taken by learned Appellate Court and on the basis of it, impugned order was passed. Whereas, it was a conclusive proof of age, which was entered in High School Certificate and it was very well there on record. Once, the same was there, then no further school document was to be taken in consideration. But erroneously another school record was taken in consideration and on the basis of it, impugned order was passed. It was apparently error, on the face of record, under erroneous exercise of jurisdiction by Appellate Court. Hence, this revision with above prayer.
(3.) Learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant vehemently opposed. It was argued that school first attended was Basic School, wherein, revisionist himself had entered his date of birth and it was there in its admission form. This could not be tampered and it was 10.8.1997. But there was manipulation, overwriting and tampering in subsequent transfer certificate, wherein, date of birth was written as 10.8.1999. The same was there in alleged Mark-sheet-cum-Certificate of High School, wherein, date of birth was writtten as 10.8.1999, but the Board itself during inquiry had obtained report of Basic Shiksha Adhikari as well as Block Organiser, wherein, this fact was cogently pressed that there is tampering with manipulation in subsequent papers including scholar register regarding date of birth of accused Atul Singh Sengar, but a tampering could not be there in the admission form, which was filled by applicant-revisionist himself and therein date of birth was 10.8.1997. The same was further been substantiated and fortified by the date of birth entered for younger brother, which is of 1998. Meaning thereby, elder brother may not be of 1999, when younger brother is of 1998. This itself shows the manipulation and false averment by accused. Beside this, marriage was performed and a marriage by juvenile is not permissible under law. At that time, marriage was solemnized by mentioning Atul Singh Sengar as major. Subsequently, it is being said that he was juvenile. Revisionist may not blow cold and hot together at one place, he said himself to be major and then after gets married. Subsequently, he claimed himself to be juvenile. Appellate Court has rightly appreciated facts and law and impugned order has been passed in accordance with material placed on record. There is neither any illegality or apparent error on face of record or mis-exercise of jurisdiction. Hence, this revision merits dismissal. Be dismissed, accordingly.;