Ramesh Sinha, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Amit Daga, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Rajiv Lochan Shukla, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 and learned A.G.A. for the State. This criminal revision has been filed challenging the Judgment and order dated 1.3.2012 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Aligarh in Criminal Appeal No. 20 of 2012 and order dated 8.2.2012 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Aligarh in Misc. Case No. 149 of 2011 (arising out of Case Crime No. 157 of 2011, registered under Sections 364, 302 and 201, I.P.C., P.S. Harduaganj district Aligarh.
(2.) ON 22.7.2011 an application was moved by opposite party No. 2 under Section 49 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act. 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for declaring him juvenile. On 8.2.2012, the Juvenile Justice Board after considering the material on record, declared the opposite party No. 2 Rohit Yadav accused in Case Crime No. 157 of 2011. Police Station Harduaganj, district Aligarh under Sections 364, 302 and 201, I.P.C. declaring him juvenile on the basis of the documents such as Scholar Register and Transfer Certificate of Agrasen Bal Vidya Mandir, Hardauganj, district Aligarh where the applicant is said to have first attended the school treating him to be aged about 17 years, 8 months and 27 days on the date of incident, i.e., 18.4.2011 on the basis of the date of birth recorded in the aforesaid documents as 21.7.1993. The revisionist/complainant being aggrieved by the order dated 8.2.2012 of the Juvenile Justice Board, challenged the same before the Sessions Judge, Aligarh in Criminal Appeal No. 20 of 2012, Yogesh @ Sonu v. Rohit Yadav under Section 52 of the Act, which was dismissed by the appellate court affirming the order of the Juvenile Justice Board declaring the opposite party No. 2 Juvenile as the court did not find any illegality in the order of the Board.
(3.) THE revisionist being aggrieved by the order passed by the Juvenile Justice Board and the appellate court, has preferred the present revision before this Court. It has been contended by learned counsel for the revisionist that the materials which was relied upon by the Juvenile Justice Board for declaring him juvenile was shaky and not reliable evidence regarding his date of birth and the Board should have taken into consideration the medical report of the opposite party No. 2 Rohit Yadav into consideration according to which, he was 19 years which was performed by the C.M.O. on 6.7.2011. He also argued that the evidence of Smt. Anshu Gupta, the Principal of Agrasen Bal Vidya Mandir, Hardauganj, district Aligarh who has proved the documentary evidence such as Scholar Register and Transfer Certificate of the opposite party No. 2 in which his date of birth has been mentioned as 21.7.1993 from the original Scholar Register and Transfer Certificate which she has produced before the Court is contradictory to the statement of Ashok Kumar, alleged to be the Assistant Teacher of the said institution. The Board as well as appellate court have committed gross illegality on relying the same and declaring the opposite party No. 2 as juvenile. He in support of his argument, has placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in Om Prakash v. State of Rajasthan and another : 2012 (5) SCC 201: 2012 (2) ACR 1825 (SC), and has drawn the attention of the Court to para Nos. 33 and 34 of the said judgment which is being quoted here below: Para 33. Similarly, if the conduct of an accused or the method and manner of commission of the offence indicates an evil and a well -planned design of the accused committing the offence which indicates more towards the matured skill of an accused than that of an innocent child, then in the absence of reliable documentary evidence in support of the age of the accused medical evidence indicating that the accused was a major cannot be allowed to be ignored taking shelter of the principle of benevolent legislation like the Juvenile Justice Act, subverting the course of justice as statutory protection of the Juvenile Justice Act is meant for minors who are innocent law breakers and not the accused of matured mind who use the plea of minority as a ploy or shield to protect himself from the sentence of the offence committed by him. Para 34. The benefit of benevolent legislation under the Juvenile Justice Act obviously will offer protection to a genuine child accused/juvenile who does not put the court into any dilemma as to whether he is a juvenile or not by adducing evidence in support of his plea of minority but in absence of the same, reliance placed merely on shaky evidence like the school admission register which is not proved or oral evidence based on conjectures leading to further ambiguity, cannot be relied upon in preference to the medical evidence for assessing the age of the accused.;