Mukhtar Ahmad, J. - (1.) This criminal revision has been preferred on behalf of the revisionist against the judgment and order dated 19.03.2015 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Etah in Criminal Appeal No. 23/2014 (Ravi Raghav (minor) Vs. State of U.P. and another) dismissing the appeal and upholding the order dated 17.06.2014 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Etah in Criminal Misc. Case No. 60 of 2013 under Sections 323, 308, 452, 304, 504, 506 I.P.C. (State Vs. Ravi Raghav) rejecting the application of revisionist seeking him to be declared as juvenile.
(2.) The encapsulated facts for the purpose of deciding this revision are that an F.I.R. was lodged on 12.6.2013 under Sections 323, 308, 452, 304, 504, 506 I.P.C by Bijendra Singh alleging that a Maarpeet was committed by the accused persons with the first informant and his family members. Police has submitted charge sheet in the matter.
(3.) It appears that an application was moved on behalf of the revisionist by her mother before the Juvenile Justice Board claiming himself to be a juvenile delinquent. It was asserted therein that his date of birth in the High School Certificate is 10.10.1995 as such on the date of incident i.e. on 6.8.2013 his age was 17 years 7 months and 28 days. The first informant opposed the application alleging that in the present incident out of four accused persons accused Kapil is younger to accused applicant and he has been provided bail by Sessions Court. It is also asserted that father of the applicant was convicted under Section 307 I.P.C. for seven years imprisonment and mother is facing trial under Section 379, 366, 307 I.P.C. It was also asserted that date of birth of accused applicant in Class 6, 7 and 8 has been mentioned as 10.1.1994 so on the date of incident he was 19 years 4 months and 28 days. On this ground application was prayed to be rejected. That application was rejected by the Board vide order dated 17.6.2014. Assailing that order a criminal appeal bearing No. 23 of 2014 was preferred which has also been dismissed vide judgment and order dated 19.3.2015. Being aggrieved with both the orders the instant revision has been preferred.;