S.K PHAUJDAR, J. - (1.) THE present petitioner had been an accused alongwith others for an offence under Sections 302/120 -B, IPC, in Case Crime No, 434 of 1993 relating to police station Pipri, Dis ­trict Sonbhadra. He took up a plea before the C.J.M. that on the date of the alleged offence (18 -9 -93) he was aged less than 16 years as he was born on 25 -6 -78. It was his plea that being a juvenile on the date of alleged commission of the offence he was entitled to be tried before a Juvenile Court. This plea was rejected by the C.J.M. Sonbhadra. An application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was then moved before this Court and the order of the C.J.M on the point of determination of age was set aside and the Sessions Judge, Sonbhadra, was directed to make an enquiry into the as ­sertions of the petitioner that he was a Juvenile on the relevant date.
(2.) THE Sessions Judge allowed evi ­dence to be adduced on behalf of the peti ­tioner. He also received the opinion of the doctor regarding the age of the petitioner after his radiological examination and in the opinion of the Sessions Judge founded on the basis of the evidence before him the petitioner was not a juvenile on the concerned date. This order of the Sessions Judge was challenged in the present criminal revision by Pankaj Kumar Tripa -thi and Hon'ble G.S.N. Tripathi, J. of this High Court, by his order dated 1 -4 -96, had set aside the order of the Sessions Judge dated 23 -11 -95. The Hon'ble Judge found that the petitioner was a Juvenile on the date of the alleged offence and, accord ­ingly, he directed that his case was to be taken up by the Juvenile Court and his application for bail was also to be considered by the Juvenile Court. This order of Hon'ble G.S.N. Tripa ­thi, J. in this very revision application, was challenged before the Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No. 1887 of 1996 by Deoki Nandan Dayma, the complainant of the case and the order of the Supreme Court dated 1 -11 -96 was communicated to this Court and office note dated 9 -5 -97 was put up. In the meantime there had also been an application on behalf of the com ­plainant before this Court itself to recall the order dated 1 -8 -96. But that applica ­tion became infructuous in view of the order of the Supreme Court dated 1 -11 -96 whereby the order of Hon'ble G.S.N. Tri ­pathi, J. was set aside. The Supreme Court directed the High Court to hear the matter and dispose of the revision petition of Pankaj Kumar Tripathi in accordance with law and the Supreme Court desired that the matter should be taken up as expeditiously as possible. The Supreme Court observed in its order that "From the order of the Sessions Judge we find that the re ­spondent No, 2 examined, amongst others, his father to prove his age but the learned Judge did not find his evidence acceptable. Curiously enough the High Court did not at all advert to this aspect of the matter. Coming now to the above quoted reason of the High Court for setting aside the im ­pugned order, there cannot be any dispute with its observation that an entry in the school register as to the date of birth of a student is admissible in evidence but the High Court was required to decide, keep ­ing in view the judgment of this Court in Dayachand v. Sahib Singh, AIR 1991 SC 930, (on which reliance was placed by the Sessions Judge) whether the assessment of the Sessions Judge regarding its probative value in the instant case was proper or not."
(3.) IT appears that in the enquiry con ­cerning age, the Sessions Judge had al ­lowed evidence to be led by the petitioner. Three witnesses were examined and an affidavit of the mother of the petitioner was filed. The High School certificate was also filed. The admission register of a Primary School, where the petitioner was admitted in 1986, was brought on record through the present Headmaster of that school and a Kutumb register was also brought on record through an officer of the Panchayat. The medical opinion was on record based on radiological examination. At the initial stage, before the C.J.M. a certificate from the Maternity Home was produced, A horoscope, prepared by the Astrologer, after the birth of the petitioner was also placed before the C.J.M. but these two papers were not placed, proved or ten ­dered before the Sessions Judge.;