The High Court allowed the revision and declared that on the date of the alleged offence, the 6 Revision Petition 3246 of 2016 7 Petition No 12801 of 2017 8 CrPC 9 Criminal Appeal 27 of 2017 10 2016 12 SCC 744 11 2001 5 SCC 714 second respondent was a minor.
2 On 28 October 2015, a First Information Report was lodged by the appellant at PS Ekka in the district of Firozabad in Uttar Pradesh which was registered as Case Crime 252 of 2016 under Section 364 A of the Penal Code.
Aggrieved by the order of the 2 Act of 2000 3 CBSE 4 JJB 5 Criminal Appeal 41 of 2016 Sessions Judge, the second respondent filed a revision 6 before the High Court which was dismissed as withdrawn on 4 January 2017.
The Sessions Judge rejected the appeal by an order dated 2 August 2017 observing, on the basis of the decision of this Court in Prag Bhati v State of Uttar Pradesh10 that the credibility and authenticity of the documents depends upon the circumstances of each case and that in a case involving companyflicting school certificates, a further inquiry would be required.
4 By an order dated 2 July 2016 the Juvenile Justice Board 4 allowed the application of the second respondent accused and declared him to be a juvenile on the date of the alleged offence.
The appellants Digitally signed by MANISH SETHI Date 2019.07.25 132846 IST Reason 1 Criminal Revision 2952 of 2017 son who was about thirteen years old was studying in the eighth standard in a public school in Shikohabad.
3 On 9 December 2015, the accused filed an application claiming to be a juvenile on the date of the incident under the Juvenile Justice Care and Protection of Children Act 20002.
The JJB also observed that the second respondent had filed an application for obtaining a driving license and an Aadhaar card in which he had declared his date of birth as 17 December 1995.
Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J 1 The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad allowed a claim of juvenility in a decision of its Single Judge dated 14 November 2018.
The Chief Medical Officer, Agra companystituted a Medical Board which in its report dated 19 November 2016 found that the age of the second respondent was about nineteen years.
He instituted a petition7 under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 19738 which was disposed of by the High Court on 17 April 2017 directing the early disposal of the pending application of the second respondent.
In support of the claim, he relied on a matriculation certificate issued by the Central Board of Secondary Education 3, Delhi reflecting his date of birth as 17 December 1998.
He submitted that on the date of the alleged offence he was sixteen years ten months and eleven days old.
His body was allegedly found in a canal.
5 Aggrieved by the decision of the Sessions Judge, the second respondent moved the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in a Criminal Revision.
The Sessions Judge also placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Ramdeo Chauhan alias Raj Nath v State of Assam11.
On 1 July 2017, the JJB rejected the claim of juvenility on the basis of the medical report.
On 16 September 2016, the Sessions Judge remanded the case to the JJB for determination of the age of the second respondent upon medical examination.
The allegation is that the appellant received a call on his cell phone from an unknown number and Signature Not Verified the caller wished to speak to his son, claiming to be his teacher.
After calling back on the number, the appellants son left his shop after a companyversation, never to return.
The second respondent filed an appeal against the order of the JJB before the Sessions Judge, Firozabad9.
The victim is alleged to have been murdered after a demand for ransom.
The appellant instituted a criminal appeal before the Court of the Sessions Judge, Firozabad5.
The second respondent was arrested during the companyrse of the investigation.
After the parties have filed their affidavits and responses, the proceedings have been taken up for final disposal.
On this basis, the JJB held that the second respondent was an adult on the date of the incident.
An opportunity was given to the parties to respond.
The judgment is challenged in this appeal1 by the companyplainant.
