M.M.S. Bedi, J. - (1.) THE main contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the revisional Court, on the basis of School certificates produced as additional evidence before the Appellate Court, has wrongly reversed the order of the Juvenile Court holding accused petitioner Sandeep Singh as not juvenile. Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment in Jabar Singh Vs. Dinesh and another, : (2010) 3 SCC 757, wherein the entry of date of birth of an accused in the admission form, school records and transfer certificates was held to be not admissible as these documents did not satisfy the conditions laid down in Section 35 of the Evidence Act, inasmuch as entry was not in public or official register and was not made either by a public service in the discharge of his official duties. A perusal of the order passed by the Appellate Court indicates that the age of petitioner Sandeep Singh was assessed on the basis of the ossification test conducted by Doctor Jagsir Singh and Dr. Manoj, statement of RW2 Jatinder Kumar who had proved the register of admission and withdrawal Ex. C3 and certificate Ex. C4 as well as the statement of RW3 Sunil Kumar to arrive at a conclusion that the date of birth of petitioner is December 10, 1992. The finding arrived at by the Appellate Court is based upon fair appreciation of evidence and material produced before it. No ground is made out for interfere in the order which is in consonance with the provisions of Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007.
(2.) COUNSEL for the petitioner has also relied upon the judgment of Arnit Das Vs. State of Bihar,, 2000 (3) RCR (Crl.) 17 to contend that when the evidence adduced on behalf of the accused in support of the plea that he was a juvenile and if two views may be possible on the same evidence, the Court should lean in favour of the accused holding the accused a juvenile in border line cases. There is no controversy regarding the settled principle of law but in the present case the overwhelming evidence available on the record does not tilt the balance towards accused who claims himself to be a juvenile. It is not a border line case but the cogent evidence has been relied upon by the lower Appellate Court to held that the petitioner was not juvenile at the time of the commission of offence. Dismissed.;