1. This criminal revision under section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C., 1973 is preferred being aggrieved by the judgment dated 15.06.2022 (Annexure- P/1) in ST No.442/2019 by 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Rajgarh (Biaora) (M.P.) whereby the claim of juvenility of the revision petitioner prosecuted and tried for charges under sections 363, 366, 366 (A), 376 (2)(i), 376 (2)(l), 376 (2) (n) of the IPC and sections 5 (j) (2), 5(k), 5(l) and 6 of POCSO Act, 2012 for the incident dated 10.07.2019 with the victim(PW-1) in crime No.261/2019 registered at P.S.- Jeerapura, District Rajgarh has been rejected.

2. The facts of the case in brief are that the revision petitioner was apprehended on 28.08.2019 vide Exhibit-P/36 in connection with the aforesaid crime mentioning his age 24 years with educational qualification 5th standard and by profession labour. He was put to trial and at the stage of final arguments he makes a default in marking appearance before the trial court and vide order dated 11.02.2022 warrant of arrest was issued and revision petitioner was arrested and produced before the court on 12.02.2022 and sent to judicial custody.

3. On 18.02.2022 an application claiming the date of birth and age of the revision petitioner as 09.11.2001 and person of 17 years 9 months on the date of incident with request to forward the proceedings to Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Rajgarh. In support of the application Head Master, Govt. School Rawali, Shri Dilip Kumar was examined as CW-1 and the documents Exhibit-C/1 and Exhibit-C/2 were admitted. Vide order dated 15.06.2022 the claim of juvenility was dismissed and the matter was fixed for final hearing by the 3rd Additional Judge, to the court of 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Rajgarh.

4. Order dated 15.06.2022 was challenged through CRR No. 2323/2022 before this court and vide order dated 17.08.2022 the order dated 15.06.2022 of trial court was set aside and it was held that prima facie petitioner had not attained the age of 18 years at the date of incident. In such circumstances he is child in conflict with law. Trial court was directed to proceed further in the matter accordingly.

5. Order dated 17.08.2022 was challenged before the Apex Court and vide order dated 07.05.2024 in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s).3319/2024 Apex Court has set aside the order dated 17.08.2022 of this court with the following observations:-

          "Notice ought to have been sent to the victim. Since this has not been done, we set aside the order of the High Court and we send the matter back to the High Court with a request to consider the matter afresh after hearing the petitioner, who is the victim. The parties shall appear before the High Court within three weeks from today and make request for early disposal. We say nothing on the merit of the case.

          The Special Leave Petition is disposed of accordingly."

6. On receipt of the aforesaid order, CRR No.2323/2022 was restored and victim also appeared before this court through counsel. Meanwhile, father of the victim appeared before the registry of this court and filed IA No.11285/2024 on 12.07.2024 claiming that he neither preferred Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s).3319/2024 before the Apex Court nor preferred IA No.8391/2024 for restoring the Criminal Revision No.2323/2024 at its original number. Coming to know the above facts counsel appearing for the victim prayed for summoning the father of victim so that factual aspect of the contentions mentioned in the application be verified and father of the victim appeared in person before this Court on 02.09.2024 and father of the victim did not press IA No.11285/2024 and the same was dismissed as not pressed. Thereafter, the opportunity of hearing was provided to both the parties. No new material could be brought before this court.

7. Impugned order dated 15.06.2022 (Annexure-P/1) in ST No.422/2019 by 3 rd Additional Judge, to the court of 1 st Additional Sessions Judge, Rajgarh is challenged before this court on the ground that trial court failed to understand the effect of section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. Trial court has raised doubt on the educational documents of the revision petitioner without any basis whereas the documents were duly verified by the Principal of the concerned school. Trial court had no jurisdictions to proceed with the case.

8. Heard.

9. Counsel for the respondent/State as well as victim opposed the revision petition and supported the impugned order of the trial court.

10. Perused the record in the form of statement of head master of Integrated Government Higher Secondary School-Ravli, Block- Susner, District- Agar Malwa recorded as CW-1 and extract of admission registered Exhibit-P/C-1 and certificate issued regarding the date of birth of revision petitioner i.e. 09.09.2001 in the form of Exhibit-C/2.

11. Reasons for disbelieving the extract of admission register Exhibit-C/1 has been assigned that the register does not contain the certification regarding the total number of pages and their opening and closing numbers. Further referring to the PW-1 that after page no.40 the entry have been made on page no.42 and the explanation of the witnesses that due to error the concerned page got adjusted, earlier page treated as suspicious circumstances. Another reason was recorded that register is beginning with page no.2 and the explanation that page no.1 is in the cover was not considered. He further mentioned that page no.26 of the register is also pinned and further assigned the reasons that entry is not in his handwriting as he joined the school in the year 2015 and recorded the finding that the above inconsistent situation have not been explained. Trial court further noticed the entry of date of birth appears the overwriting at the place of month and further observed that overwriting in connection with entry no.740 have been verified by initial of the maker but such initials are not with the entry no.738 and rejected the application that overwriting of entry no.733 and 741 also does not bear the verification. Trial court further observed that the age of 17 years 9 months is only 3 months near to attaining the age of adulthood and manipulation of overwriting on the month is significant. It has not been proved that who admitted the revision petitioner in the school and the finding is not sufficient to infer that revision petitioner was below the age of 18 years of age on the date of incident. Trial court further observed that no claim of juvenility was raised at the time of arrest on 28.08.2019 and till the case reached at the stage of final arguments. No evidence has been adduced that who caused the entries to be made and what are the basis of that entries.

12. In the case of Om Prakash @ Israel@ Raju@ Raju Das Vs. Union of India 2025 INSC 43 it is held that plea of juvenility can be raised at any stage even after the initial adjudication, if it has not been properly determined or finalized. Accordingly, the observation of the trial court that no claim of juvenility was raised at the time of arrest on 28.08.2019 and till the case reached at the stage of final arguments have no adverse impact on the determination of age. On the contrary there was no basis with the prosecution to mention the date of birth of the revision petitioner in Exhibit-P/36 as 24 years. There is no other date of birth of the revision petitioner as different from the date of birth claimed by the revision petitioner. Exhibit-C/1 proved through Dilip Kumar Patidar PW-1 reveals that revision petitioner was admitted to the Integrated Govt. School Ravli, Block- Susner District Agar Malwa (M.P) in Class-I for the academic year 2006-2007 and referred overwriting between B to B portion regarding the month does not reveals that month have been substituted with another month of the calender year. Otherwise also any change in the month alone will not bring the revision petitioner in the age of 24 years instead of 17 years and 9 months. Despite giving opportunity of hearing to the victim nothing contrary to the date of birth recorded in Exhibit-C/1 has been brought on record.

13. The Apex Court in the case of Vinod Katare Vs. State of U.P. 2022 SCC Online SC 1204 has held that hyper technical approach should not be adopted in deciding the claim of juvenility and the relevant para is being reproduced as below:-

          " In deciding whether an accused is juvenile or not, a hyper technical approach should not be adopted. While appreciating the evidence adduced on behalf of the accused in support of the plea that he is a juvenile, if two views are possible on the same evidence, the Court should lean in favour of holding the accused to be juvenile in borderline cases. The inquiry contemplated is not a roving inquiry. The Court can accept as evidence something more than an affidavit i.e. documents, certificates etc. as evidence in proof of age. Stressing on the importance of documentary evidence, the Court observed that a mere opinion by a person as to the accused looking one or two years older than the age claimed by him or the fact that the accused told his age to be more than what he alleges in the case while being arrested by the police officer would not hold much water. It is the documentary evidence placed on record that plays a major role in determining the age of a juvenile in conflict of law. And, it is only in the cases where the documents or certificates placed on record by the accused in support of his claim of juvenility are found to be fabricated or manipulated, that the Court, the Juvenile Justice Board or the Committee need to go for medical test for age determination."

14. There is no rebuttal evidence in this case. The evidence adduced by the revision petitioner could not be proved to be fabricated or manipulated. Accordingly in these circumstances, in view of the aforesaid discussion and also in the absence of any rebuttal evidence, in the considered opinion of this Court, the petitioner has discharged his initial burden about his juvenility as there was no reasonable ground to doubt the said documents produced by him. The learned trial Court has committed an error in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner in this regard. Consequently, the petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 15.06.2022 is hereby set aside, and prima facie it is held that the petitioner had not attained the age of 18 years on the date of the incident; as such, he is a child in conflict with the law. Therefore, the trial court is directed to proceed further in the matter, accordingly.

15. Copy of the order be forwarded to the victim in the light of Aparna Bhat vs. State of M.P - AIR 2021 SC 1492.