JUDGMENT : 1. - The accused petitioner Richpal filed this petition under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code against the order dated 15.1.2003 whereby the learned Special Judge (SC/ST Cases), Sikar dismissed the application under Section 49 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (in short the Act, 2000) filed by the accused petitioner. 2. The relevant facts in brief are that the Parchabayan of minor Kumari Sonu was recorded on 8.5.2002. She stated that Chunni Lal and one another boy (present accused petitioner) took her to a flour mill and committed rape with her and when she threatened to make a complaint, she was burnt by kerosene. Case under Sections 307, 376, Indian Penal Code and 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities), Act 1989 (in short the Act, 1989) was registered. During investigation Sonu expired on 16.5.2002. After investigation charge-sheet came to be filed under Section 376, 302 Civil Procedure Code and under Section 3 of the Act, 1989 against Chunni Lal and present accused petitioner Richpal, 3. The accused petitioner submitted an application under Section 49 of the Act, 2000 that his date of birth was 14.7.1984 and this incident is said to have taken place on 30.4.2002, hence he was of 17 years 9 months and 16 days old at that time and thus a juvenile under the Act. According to Section 2(k) of the Act, 2000, "juvenile" or "child" means a person who has not completed eighteenth year of age. The learned Special Judge conducted an inquiry on this point. The accused examined one witness Moti Ram Verma and submitted some documents to prove that he was below the age of 18 years at that time. Learned Judge vide impugned order dated 15.1.2003 (alter) discussing the entire evidence came to this conclusion that the accused petitioner was below 18 years of age at that time. 4. Learned counsel for the accused petitioner contended that the age of the accused petitioner below 18 years was proved by oral as well as documentary evidence and there was no reason to discard the same. He placed reliance upon some judgments. In Rajan & Ors. 4. Learned counsel for the accused petitioner contended that the age of the accused petitioner below 18 years was proved by oral as well as documentary evidence and there was no reason to discard the same. He placed reliance upon some judgments. In Rajan & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan, 2002(3) WLC (Raj.) 607 : 2002(1) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) page 778 , it was held by this Court in a case of 376 Indian Penal Code that the best evidence for determination of age of the victim is the birth certificate or the school certificate and so far as the medical evidence is concerned, since it has margin of error, it would be taken into consideration only when primary evidence which is found in the birth certificate or school certificate is not available. In Bhola Bhagat v. State of Bihar, (1997)8 SCC 720 , it was held that when there is doubt regarding the age of the accused as to whether he was a child on the date of occurrence, the Court should conduct an inquiry by giving an opportunity to the parties to establish their claims and to record the positive finding regarding the age of the accused. In Santenu Mitra v. State of W.B., (1998)5 SCC 697 , it was held that to determine the age of the offender, entry in register of births and deaths giving date of birth is relevant. In Rajinder Chandra v. State of Chhattisgarh and another, (2002)2 SCC 287 , it was held that when accused claims himself to be juvenile, onus lies upon him to prove this fact and it was also held that in border line cases when two views are possible on the basis of the evidence adduced, the view which is in favour of the juvenile accused should be adopted. In Ramdeo Chauhan alias Raj Nath v. State of Assam, (2001)5 SCC 714 , it was held that the statement of the doctor is no more than an opinion. The Court has to base its conclusions upon all the facts and circumstances disclosed on examining the physical features of a person whose age in question, in conjunction with such oral testimony as may be advisable. Learned counsel contended that there was no reason to discard the documentary evidence on this point and it was not proper to determine the age on appearance of physical features of the accused petitioner. Learned counsel contended that there was no reason to discard the documentary evidence on this point and it was not proper to determine the age on appearance of physical features of the accused petitioner. Learned Public Prosecutor supported the impugned order and contended that no material was placed on record to show as on what basis the age of the accused petitioner was mentioned in admission form, hence Ex.1 to Ex.3 were not sufficient to determine the age of the accused petitioner below 18 years. 5. I have considered the rival submissions. The oral testimony of Moti Ram Verma is of no consequence to determine the age of the petitioner as he had no personal knowledge on the point of the age of the petitioner and more so this petitioner was admitted in the school in July, 1990 while Sh. Moti Ram Verma was posted in the school in July, 1998 and thus his statement is entirely based upon Ex.1 to Ex.3. Ex.1 is admission form of the petitioner wherein the date of birth is said to be 14.7.1984. On the basis of this document Ex.1, entry at Serial No. 831 was made in the scholar register of the school and T.C. Ex.3 was also issued on the basis of Ex.2. Thus entry Ex.2 in register is based upon admission form Ex.1 and Ex.3 T.C. is based upon Ex.2. As stated hereinabove Sh. Moti Ram Verma had no personal knowledge on the point of the age as well as on the point of these three documents. No doubt, an entry made in a register by public servant in discharge of his duty is a relevant fact under Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act but this does not mean that such entry would be sufficient proof regarding the correctness of such entry. Here in this case Ex.1 admission form was submitted not by father or mother of the petitioner but by one Bajrang Lal whose identity is also not on the record. Sh. Bajrang Lal was not examined by the accused. Here in this case Ex.1 admission form was submitted not by father or mother of the petitioner but by one Bajrang Lal whose identity is also not on the record. Sh. Bajrang Lal was not examined by the accused. It is also important to observe here that even parents of the petitioner were not examined by the petitioner and in view of such facts and circumstances, the learned Trial Judge rightly observed that since there was no basis for making the entry regarding the age of the petitioner in admission form as well as in scholar register, these documents by itself were not sufficient to prove that the petitioner was below 18 years of age. It was also observed by learned Trial Court that when this petitioner was examined by the Doctor about his potency, he disclosed his age to be 19 years and the same age of 19 years was also stated in arrest memo and even by physical appearance he appears to be more than 18 years. In view of the entire above discussion, I find no infirmity, illegality in the impugned order. 6. Consequently, this petition is hereby dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******