KASHI NATH PANDEY, J. - (1.) THIS criminal revision has been filed against order dated 14.11.2008 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 10, Meerut in criminal appeal No. 228 of 2008 (Jai Nand Sharma v. State of U.P.) by which the appeal has been dismissed against the order dated 12.8.2008 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Meerut in Misc. Case No. 308 of 2008 by which it has been declared that the opposite party No. 2, Amit Kumar and opposite party No. 3, Ankit Kumar were juvenile at the time, the offence under Sections 302,323, 504 and 506, IPC crime No. 176 of 2008, P.S. Bhawanpur, District Meerut was committed.
(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the revisionist and learned counsel for the opposite parties. I have gone through the impugned order of Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board and First Appellate Court. There is concurrent finding on point of fact by both the Courts below, therefore, it is not expected from the Revisional Court to interfere into the findings of fact, unless and until the finding is perverse i.e. against the evidence in record. The Revisional Court can also interfere, if there is any error of substantive law or of procedural law.
(3.) I have perused the grounds of revision. It has been asserted that to arrive at a true conclusion on point of age, they should be subjected to medical examination, but both the Courts have ignored it. The accused were not medically examined to ascertain their age. It has also been mentioned that normally parents do not tell correct date of birth of their children showing their lesser age so that in future they may get advantage in services or examination. Learned Lower Court did not appreciate the document filed by the revisionist in their true prospects.-The voter list and par/war register show that the date of birth of the opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 is in the year 1988 and 1990 showing them to be major at the time of the incident. Lower Court failed to appreciate the statement of the village panchayat adhikari. Both the Courts below erred in law by not subjecting the accused persons for medical examination to ascertain their age.;