JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition under Section 53 of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (in short, 'the Act') against the order dated 17th April, 2008 passed by the learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track), Hindauncity, Karauli by which the application filed by the petitioner under Section 49 of the Act in Criminal Case No. 90/2007 has been dismissed. 2. Briefly stated the facts for the disposal of this revision petition are that the petitioner is facing trial under Sections 376(2)(f), 366A and 342 IPC. During the course of trial, an application was moved by the petitioner claiming himself to be a juvenile as his date of birth is 1st May, 1991 and the incident took place on 15th August, 2007, therefore, the accused was below 18 years of age. The learned trial court conducted an inquiry in relation to the age of the accused petitioner. Three witnesses were produced on behalf of the petitioner and three documents were tendered in evidence. In rebuttal, one witness was examined by the respondent State and X-ray report was got exhibited. The learned trial court after hearing both the parties vide order dated 17th April, 2008 found that the petitioner was not a juvenile on the date of incident, therefore, his application was liable to be rejected and the same was rejected. Hence, this revision petition. 3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned trial court has not properly appreciated the evidence and by simply placing reliance on ossification test, rejected the application of the petitioner for treating him as a juvenile. It is further contended that as per the school certificate the date of birth of the petitioner is 1st May, 1991, therefore, as per the provisions of Section 2(k) of the Act, the petitioner is a juvenile and he is to be tried by the Juvenile Justice Court. It is contended that the finding recorded by the learned court below is perverse in nature, therefore, the order passed by the learned trial court requires to be set aside. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajinder Chandra v. State of Chhatisgarh and another, 2002(1) WLC (SC) Cri. 210 : (2002)2 SCC 287 and Raisul v. State of U.P., AIR 1977 SC 1822 . 4. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajinder Chandra v. State of Chhatisgarh and another, 2002(1) WLC (SC) Cri. 210 : (2002)2 SCC 287 and Raisul v. State of U.P., AIR 1977 SC 1822 . 4. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor has contended that in the instant case the evidence which has been produced on behalf of the petitioner is of his father, mother and a school teacher and a perusal of their statements would reveal that same is not reliable. It is contended that in the admission form, there are cuttings and interpolation in relation to date of birth and if that is so then in view of other material which were brought on record, the learned trial court has correctly passed the order. 5. I have considered the submissions made before me and perused the material available on record. 6. The point for consideration in the present matter is as to whether the accused petitioner was a juvenile on the date the alleged incident took place i.e. on 15.8.2007. 7. AW-1 Ansar Ahmed has proved three documents which are admission form (Ex.1), entries made in the admission register (Ex.2) and the transfer certificate (Ex.3). He has stated that at the relevant time when the petitioner was admitted in the school, Shri Rikhab Chand was the Headmaster. The petitioner was admitted in the school on 13.7.1996. The admission form contains the signature of Shri Ram Roop Meena. In the cross examination he has stated that the form was not filled before him, therefore, he could not say as to whether the age mentioned in the admission form was on what basis. He has stated that in the year 2000, the petitioner's name was removed from the admission register of school on account of his long absence. AW-2 is Ramroop @ Moolya who is father of the petitioner. He has stated that his marriage took place in the year 1985. His elder daughter is Rampati, next to her is Harpati and thereafter the petitioner was born and the youngest son's name is Shivdayal. He has stated that the marriage of his both daughters took place on 5.4.2003. He has stated that his son's (petitioner) date of birth is 1.5.1991 and the petitioner was admitted in the school on 13.7.1996. His elder daughter is Rampati, next to her is Harpati and thereafter the petitioner was born and the youngest son's name is Shivdayal. He has stated that the marriage of his both daughters took place on 5.4.2003. He has stated that his son's (petitioner) date of birth is 1.5.1991 and the petitioner was admitted in the school on 13.7.1996. In the cross examination he has stated that his elder daughter was born on 16.8.1987. In relation to other sons and daughters, the witness could not reply about the year and date of their birth. In relation to admission form he has stated that his brother Ram Swaroop has filed up the form and at that time he was present. He has stated that no no cutting or over writings were made at the time when the form was filled and submitted before the school authorities. He has also stated that he did not either put his thumb impression on the admission form or signed the same. AW-3 is Smt. Dhaula. She has stated that she got married on 10.3.1985. The petitioner was born after two daughters, namely; Rampati and Harpati. Ramdayal, the petitioner, is the third child. In the cross examination she has stated that she does not remember date and year of birth of her children. She has shown her ignorance about the filling of the admission form either by her husband or by his brother. She has also stated that they got prepared a ration card but the same could not be produced. 8. As against the above evidence, NAW-1 is Dr. Ramesh Chand Sharma, who has stated that on 20.8.2007 while discharging functions as a Junior Medical Officer in the General Hospital, Karauli, a medical board was constituted to ascertain the age of the petitioner. On the basis of X- ray report, it was found that on 20.8.2007, the age of the petitioner was between 18 to 20 years. 9. The learned trial court on the basis of oral as well as documentary evidence found that the evidence led in this case to prove the petitioner as a juvenile was not trust-worthy. The learned trial court further found that in the admission form there were cuttings and interpolation and nobody has come forward to clarify the same and held that petitioner was not a juvenile. 10. The learned trial court further found that in the admission form there were cuttings and interpolation and nobody has come forward to clarify the same and held that petitioner was not a juvenile. 10. I have also carefully examined the evidence led in the case and also perused the documentary evidence. 11. It appears from the admission form Ex. 1 that in column no. 4 there is over writing made in the date of birth of the petitioner. It appears that in the year 1991, the figure 6' has been made as 1 In words, the date of birth is written as 1TT TO r . In the admission register Ex.2 at serial no. 1337, the name of the petitioner finds* place and date of submitting form is 13.7.1996 and date of birth is 1.5.1991. On the transfer certificate issued, the date of birth is mentioned as 1.5.1991 and the date of admission is mentioned as 13.7.1996. 12. Thus, it appears that except in the admission form, entries made at many places i.e. admission register and transfer certificate there is no Interpolation. It also appears that in words also in the admission form the date of birth has been mentioned as In the X-ray report and in the opinion of the medical board, the petitioner was between 18 to 20 years of age on the date when he was examined by the medical board. As per the documentary evidence and on the basis of the entries made in the school register, transfer certificate and admission form, taking into consideration the date of the offence committed by the accused i.e. 15.8.2007, he is 16 years and two months. If this is correct, then the petitioner is definitely a juvenile and he is to be tried by the Juvenile Justice Board. 13. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case Rajinder Chandra v. State of Chhatisgarh and another (supra) has observed that if two views are possible while considering the matter in relation to a juvenile, then the courts should lean in favour of holding the accused to be a juvenile in borderline cases. 13. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case Rajinder Chandra v. State of Chhatisgarh and another (supra) has observed that if two views are possible while considering the matter in relation to a juvenile, then the courts should lean in favour of holding the accused to be a juvenile in borderline cases. In para 5 of the judgment it is observed as under : "It is true that the age of the accused is just on the border of sixteen years and on the date of the offence and his arrest he was less than 16 years by a few months only. In Arnit Das v. State of Bihar, (2000) 5 SCC 488 , this court has, on a review of judicial opinion, held that while dealing with question of determination of the age of the accused for the purpose of finding out whether he is a 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 was a juvenile and if two views may be possible on the said evidence, the court should lean in favour of holding the accused to be a juvenile in borderline cases. The law, so laid down by this court, squarely applies to the facts of the present case." 14. In the case of Raisul v. State of U.P. (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that the courts are not required to substitute their own estimation in regard to age of accused on the basis of their estimation about the age. It is also observed that the appearances can often be deceptive. 15. The facts and evidence as has been discussed here-in- above suggest that the case in hand is also a borderline case and except some cuttings in the admission form in relation to date of birth of the petitioner, there does not appear any interpolation in other entries. In the transfer certificate issued by the school authorities, the date of birth of the petitioner has been mentioned as 1.5.1991 and in the admission register also the same date of birth has been mentioned. The doctor has also opined the age between 18 to 20 years. In the transfer certificate issued by the school authorities, the date of birth of the petitioner has been mentioned as 1.5.1991 and in the admission register also the same date of birth has been mentioned. The doctor has also opined the age between 18 to 20 years. In the above circumstances, the cuttings in date of birth of the petitioner in the admission form when seen with other documents tendered in evidence go to show that no interpolation has been made therein then to presume that a false record has been prepared or produced, in my opinion, is not justified. It is also significant to note that when Ansar Ahmed, headmaster of the school was examined as AW-1, no such question has been put to the witness in relation to over writing made on Ex.1. In relation to other witnesses it can be said that they are villagers and they may not know the exact date of birth but it is difficile to presume that when the petitioner was sent to school why the parents would fill wrong date of birth in the admission form. On over all scrutiny of the documents produced by both the sides, it appears that the petitioner was a juvenile on the date of the incident i.e. 15.8.2007, therefore, the finding recorded by the learned trial court that the petitioner is not a juvenile only on the basis of some cuttings made in the date of birth mentioned in the admission form, though in words there is no cutting or over writing in the date of birth, is not sustainable. The other documents produced also show the date of birth of the petitioner as 1.5.1991 and as per the medical evidence the age was between 18 to 20 years then in the above circumstances, hyper technical approach, in my opinion, is not required to be adopted and the order passed by the learned trial court requires to be set aside treating the accused as juvenile. 16. In the result, the revision petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 17.4.2008 passed by the learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track), Hindauncity, District Karauli in Criminal Case No. 90/2007 is set aside. The learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track) Hindauncity, District Karauli is directed to pass appropriate order for transferring the case for trial to the concerned. Juvenile Justice Board in accordance with law.Revision Allowed. *******