KALIM Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Santosh Kumar Chaubey, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri J.B. Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 and learned A.G.A. for the State.

(2.) This criminal revision has been filed under Sec. 102 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 with a prayer to set aside the order of the Juvenile Justice Board dtd. 26/3/2021 passed in age determination inquiry in Misc. Application No. 43 of 2020 arising out of Crime No. 439 of 2020 under Ss. 302, 120-B IPC, Police Station Hasanpur, District-Amroha (J.P. Nagar) with a further prayer to set aside the order passed in criminal appeal affirming the order of the Juvenile Justice Board and to declare the revisionist a juvenile under the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015.

(3.) The submission of the revisionist are that the learned courts below have committed a manifest error of law in passing the impugned orders; in the school certificate the date of birth was shown as 10/8/2006, which clearly established the age of the revisionist as 14 years and 12 days on the date of the occurrence; the courts below ignored the school certificate thereby flouting the provisions of law; the school certificate was proved by the evidence of the teacher of the concerned primary school and by the Ex-Principal of the same institution examined as CW2 and CW3; the learned courts below instead of relying upon the original and the documentary evidence took into consideration the report of the Medical Board and disbelieved the date of birth, as shown in the certificate; the impugned order is illegal because it is founded on the fact that the copy of the pariwar register was not produced by the revisionist at the right time; at the same time, the age of the juvenile, as shown in the driving licence was accepted against the provisions of law, hence, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside and the revisionist deserves to be declared a juvenile.