JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner Rajendra was alleged to have intentionally caused death of one Kalua on 18.3.93. The case u/Section 302, IPC was registered against him and after investigation of the case he was charge-sheeted. The learned Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Sessions on 30.6.93. Before the Sessions Court, the question of age of the petitioner as on the date of occurrence, i.e. 18.3.93, was pending for consideration of the Court, possibly in connection with his release on bail. The case of the petitioner was that he was below 16 years of age on the day of occurrence, his date of birth being 7.7.1977. The learned Trial Court appears to have made a reference in that behalf to this Court, being S.B. Cr. Reference No. 3/93. A Cr. Misc. Petition being No. 1007/93 Rajendra v. State was also filed before this Court. This Court vide its order dated 25.1.94,whiled is posing of the Cr. Misc. Petition, directed the Trial Court to ascertain the age of the petitioner as on 18.3.93. In compliance of such orders of this Court, the learned Trial Court examined DW 1 Kishan Singh, DW 2 Lakkhu, DW 3 Smt. Premvati and DW 4 Dharam Singh, as were produced by the petitioner in support of his contention that his date of birth was 7.7.1977. Dr. Bahu Lal Meena, who was the Medical Jurist, Bharatpur at the relevant time, appears to have been examined as a Court witness. The substance of the oral evidence led by the petitioner in support of his contention was that he was below 16 years of age at the time of commission of the offence in the present case. In support of such oral evidence, the record of the school wherein the petitioner was firstly admitted was also called by the learned Trial Court. The entries made in the scholars register showed the date of birth of the petitioner as 7.7.1977. On the other hand, Dr. Babu Lal, on the basis of physical examination of the petitioner particularly of his several bones which had been bayed and the fusion whereof had been noted by him,opined that at the time of his examination on 8.6.94, the petitioner was above 17 years but below 18 years of age. On the other hand, Dr. Babu Lal, on the basis of physical examination of the petitioner particularly of his several bones which had been bayed and the fusion whereof had been noted by him,opined that at the time of his examination on 8.6.94, the petitioner was above 17 years but below 18 years of age. On appreciation of the evidence so brought before him the learned trial Judge opined that the oral evidence led by the petitioner and as supported by the entry of the date of birth of the petitioner in the scholars register was not reliable and that the opinion of Dr. Babu Lai Meena was acceptable. The learned trial Judge, therefore, held that the petitioner was not below 16 years of age on the date of occurrence, i.e. on 18.3.93. 2. The main contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the learned trial Judge has not appreciated the nature of the evidence, as brought on his record, in right perspective. It was pointed out that the entry of the date of birth of the petitioner in the scholars register and which entry was based on the direct knowledge of the birth of the petitioner to his father, must have been given due weight particularly when such date of birth stood corroborated by the sworn testimonies of not only the parents of the petitioner but also of other persons, who may reasonably be expected to know of and remember the event of the birth of the.petitioner. In this behalf reliance was placed on the decision of this Court in the case of Dhire Dhruvendra Singh v. State of Raj., 1990 Cr.L.R. (Raj.)481 , wherein relying upon an earlier decision of this Court in the case of Gurpinder Singh v. State of Ra j.,1989 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 345 and Supreme Court decision in the case of Umesh Chandra v.State of Raj., 1982 (2) SCC 202 , it was held that oral testimonies regarding the age of a person may have utility only if no reliable documentary evidence was forthcoming on the record. 3. The learned Counsel for the respondent, however, contended that since the findings recorded by the learned trial Judge with regard to the age of the petitioner were reasonable and such findings were based on appreciation of the evidence on record, this Court should not interfere with the impugned order. 3. The learned Counsel for the respondent, however, contended that since the findings recorded by the learned trial Judge with regard to the age of the petitioner were reasonable and such findings were based on appreciation of the evidence on record, this Court should not interfere with the impugned order. It was pointed out that the oral evidence led by the parents of the petitioner and other witnesses was self- contradictory and that other independent evidence which could have been brought on the record was suppressed and was not placed before the Court. Under such circumstances the impugned order should not be interfered with. 4. 1 have examined the record of the lower Court. The determination of age of the petitioner, in the facts and circumstances of the case, assumes importance in view of the fact that he stands charged with a heinous crime. At the same time the provisions of a social legislation like Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 and the Rajasthan Children Act, 1970 give him protection from a regular trial before a regular Court and afford him an opportunity to improve himself and he a good citizen. In view of such social imperatives with regard to the administration of criminal justice in relation to the offences committed by offenders, below 16 years of age, the question of determination of their ages, as on the date of occurrence has to be decided quite objectively as also subjectively. 5. On going through the statements brought on the record of the lower Court, I gather that Kishan Singh, DW 1, who was the neighbour to Smt. Premwati and Dharam Singh, the mother and father of the petitioner respectively, at the time of the birth of the petitioner had deposed that the petitioner was borne in the month of July, 1977. This witness is an ex-surpanch of the village. His evidence inspires confidence for the reasons that he did not try to give exact date of birth of the petitioner to show his interest and eagerness, to support the case of the petitioner. He is an independent and reliable witness and, therefore, his evidence was required to have been accepted. 6. Lakkhu, DW 2, is the elder brother of the father of petitioner. He had stated that the petitioner was born in the month of 'Ashad' when Smt. Indiraji had been defeated. He is an independent and reliable witness and, therefore, his evidence was required to have been accepted. 6. Lakkhu, DW 2, is the elder brother of the father of petitioner. He had stated that the petitioner was born in the month of 'Ashad' when Smt. Indiraji had been defeated. Being elder brother of the father of the petitioner this witness could have direct knowledge of the factum of the birth of the petitioner. His testimony cannot be rejected on the sole ground that he is a close relative of the petitioner. In the context of the fact in issue he is a natural witness and therefore, his testimony carries weight. 7. Smt. Premwati, DW 3, is the mother of the petitioner. She is stated to be a Nurse. She had stated that the petitioner was born to her on 7.7.1977.'The testimony of this witness could not have been rejected merely on the ground that she being a Nurse had not produced the recoded of the Hospital wherein the petitioner might have been born. No adverse presumption could have been drawn against the petitioner for having not brought an evidence, which he could have brought, when sufficient evidence had already been placed by him on the record of the Court. As told by Dharam Singh, the petitioner was not born in hospital but at house. Hence no fault can be found with the testimony of this witness. 8. Dharam Singh, DW 4, is the father of the petitioner. He is an educated person. He has stated on oath that the petitioner was born on 7.7.1977 at 4 p.m. at his house. This witness has further stated that he had got the petitioner admitted to 5th Class in Village Junther and then in the year 1988, when the witness was himself transferred to Nagar, the petitioner was admitted there. This witness has given the dates of birth of his other children as well. When the entry made in the school's register is read alongwith the oral evidence, led by Smt. Premwati and Sh. Dharam Singh, the mother and father of the petitioner respectively, it stands proved that the entry in the scholars register regarding the age of the petitioner as being 7.7.1977 had been made on the basis of the direct knowledge of the parents of the petitioner as furnished to the authorities of the School. Dharam Singh, the mother and father of the petitioner respectively, it stands proved that the entry in the scholars register regarding the age of the petitioner as being 7.7.1977 had been made on the basis of the direct knowledge of the parents of the petitioner as furnished to the authorities of the School. The learned trial Judge has himself referred to the entry made in the scholars register but has rejected the same on the basis that such entry had been made simply on the basis of an affidavit of the father of the petitioner, which was presented by him at the time of getting admission of the petitioner in the school. The affidavit, under these circumstances, afforded good evidence for the basis of the entry made in the scholars register. It is thus clear that the oral as well as documentary evidence regarding the age of the petitioner clearly established that he was born on 7.7.1977. Such evidence had come from those persons who could have direct knowledge of the event of the birth of the petitioner and, therefore, the same was quite reliable and acceptable. 9. As against the above, Dr. Babu Lal had tendered opinion evidence in the present case. H is opinion was though relevant u /Section 45 of the Evidence Act and such opinion was also based on the reasons furnished by him as required by Section 51 of the Evidence Act, yet it was an opinion of a third person only and could not have demolished the positive evidence led by persons, having direct knowledge of the date of birth of the petitioner. In view of the evidence brought on the record of the case it could have been said that the documentary evidence relating to the age of the petitioner and which document consisted of the entry made in the scholars register must have been given due credence by the learned trial Judge. Such evidence could not have been rejected solely on the ground that other evidence like the natal chart or horoscope of the petitioner or the non-existing document of his birth in the hospital could have been brought on the record. Natal chart may be prepared at any time on furnishing information to the drawer of the chart and there is no guarantee of truthfulness to the information, furnished to the drawer of the chart. Natal chart may be prepared at any time on furnishing information to the drawer of the chart and there is no guarantee of truthfulness to the information, furnished to the drawer of the chart. The petitioner was not, as stated by his mother and father, born in a hospital and, therefore, no adverse inference could have been raised in that behalf. The findings of the learned Judge appear to be based on mere surmises, conjectures and wrong and invalid inference, besides mis appreciation of the evidence on record and, therefore, require rejection by this Court. 10. In view of the above discussion, I am clearly of the opinion that Rajendra, petitioner was born on 7.7.1977. On the date of occurrence i.e. on 18.3.1993, he was below 16 years of age. His case is, therefore, required to be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 or Rajasthan Children Act, 1970, as the case may be. The learned trial Judge is, therefore, directed to send the case of the petitioner to the Children Court at Bharatpur to be disposed of in accordance with Sections 21, 22 and 26 of the Rajasthan Children Act, 1970 or the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 as may be applicable to his case. That being so the impugned order of the learned trial Judge is set aside and the petition is I allowed.Petition allowed. *******