ADITYA NATH MITTAL, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A., learned counsel appearing for opposite party no.2 and perused the record.
(2.) THIS criminal revision has been filed against order dated 26.5.2012 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No.5, Meerut, by which he has allowed the Criminal Appeal No.2 of 2011 and thereby has declared the opposite party no.2 as juvenile. Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the Juvenile Justice Board has also considered the said evidence and the Juvenile Justice Board, Meerut by his order dated 21.12.2010 has not found that the opposite party no.2 was a juvenile on the date of incident but learned Appellate Court has wrongly interpreted the provisions of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 and has wrongly relied upon the High -school certificate. It has also been submitted that as per entry of first school attended, the date of birth of the opposite party no.2 is 5.6.1991 and in the family register he has mentioned the year of birth is 1990. The witnesses have also stated in their statements that the said school had started in the year 1995, therefore, there was no occasion for the opposite party no.2 to have taken admission at such an early age of about two years. It has also been submitted that the record of first school attended has been duly proved. It has also been submitted that in heinous crimes, the person should not be declared as juvenile merely on the contradictory evidence.
(3.) LEARNED A.G.A. and learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no.2 have defended the impugned order and have submitted that the High -school certificate cannot be disbelieved and there is no illegality in the said appellate order. It has also been submitted that there were contradictions in the statements of Manager of the school and the witnesses, therefore, learned Appellate Court has not committed any error in relying upon the High -school certificate.;