JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner has challenged the order dated 6.5.2005 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Bandikui whereby he has held the petitioner to be a major at the time of commission of the offence. 2. Shri Prem Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner's date of birth as shown in the Admission ticket of his school is 2.10.88. Deo Pal Meena (AW-2), petitioner's father, has also stated in the examination-in-chief that his son was about 14 to 15 years old. In his cross-examination, he has clearly stated that he remembers that his son was born on the birthday of Mahatma Gandhi. He further states that his son was born in 1988. Learned counsel has also relied upon the medical evidence according to which the petitioner is said to be about 18 to 19 years. Therefore, the learned counsel has argued that on the date of occurrence i.e. 1.9.04, the petitioner was about 15 years and 10 months old. Hence, according to the learned counsel, the learned trial Judge has failed to consider the evidence which was readily available on record. Thus a perversity has been committed by him. 3. On the other hand, the learned PP has argued that according to Angad Ram Meena (AW-1), there are two dates of birth of the petitioner given in the record. Therefore, his actual date of birth is doubtful. But in all fairness, the learned PP has not challenged the medical opinion given by the doctor. 4. We have heard both the learned counsels and have gone through the testimonies of prosecution witnesses and have also considered the medical evidence submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. A bare perusal of the testimony of Angad Ram (AW-1) clearly reveals that it is not that he has stated that there are two different dates of birth of the petitioner. But, in fact, he has stated that petitioner's date of birth as given in the school record is 2.10.88 as is also revealed by the T.C. which was issued on 1.7.89. Thus, the contention of the learned PP, there are two dates of birth, one of 2.10.88 and another of 1.7.88, the said contention is belied by the testimony. 6. But, in fact, he has stated that petitioner's date of birth as given in the school record is 2.10.88 as is also revealed by the T.C. which was issued on 1.7.89. Thus, the contention of the learned PP, there are two dates of birth, one of 2.10.88 and another of 1.7.88, the said contention is belied by the testimony. 6. On the other hand, Deo Pal (AW 2), the petitioner's father, clearly states that he had gotten the date of birth in the school record as 2.10.88. Therefore, according to him the petitioner is about 15 years old. Since ossification test reveals an approximate age of the petitioner, according to the Modi's Medical Jurisprudence the age is generally plus or minus of two years from the medical opinion, hence, the finding of the doctor that the petitioner is 18 to 19 years, leads us to conclude that the petitioner would be about 16 years old on the date of occurrence. Thus, statement of the father is corroborated by the medical evidence. In the case of Bhoop Ram v. State of U.P. ( AIR 1989 SC 1329 ) , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has also held that the school certificate produced by the accused should be preferred to the medical evidence. In the case of Umesh Chandra v. State of Rajasthan (1982) 2 SCC 202 ) , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has further held that entry in the school register would be admissible under section 35 of the Evidence Act. This view has been fortified recently in the case of Pratap Singh v. State of Jharkhand and another (2005(1) WLC (SC) Criminal 452: AIR 2005 SC 2731 ) . 7. Considering the testimony of Deo Pal (AW 2), the entry in the School Certificate and the medical evidence, we allow this petition. We direct that the petitioner should be treated as juvenile on the date of occurrence and he should be tried by the juvenile court for the alleged offence against him in accordance with law.Petition allowed. *******