JUDGMENT By Court.-This revision is directed against the order dated 28.2.2009 passed in S.T. No. 192 of 2006 (arising out of Lohardaga P.S. Case No. 122/2006, G.A. No. 342 of 2006) passed by Sessions Judge, Lohardaga, by which order the petition filed by the petitioner-accused, Raju Bhagat @ Raju Oraon under Section 7(A) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 claiming that he was aged about 15 years on the date of occurrence, has been rejected by the Sessions Judge, Lohardaga relying on the Medical Board finding that he was Caged about 20 years on 15.6.2007 and as such learned Sessions Judge refused to consider the petitioner as a Juvenile. 2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that during inquiry 4 witnesses have been examined, including E.W. 3, Smt. Savitri Kaschap, Principal In-charge of Primary Utkramik Madhya Vidyalaya, Hesal, who produced the admission register of the school for the year 1985-99 and as per Entry No. 34 the date of birth of the petitioner was recorded in the school register as 23rd August, 1990. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that now it is a settled principle of law that when there is an opinion of Medical Board as also the certificate of school then the school certificate will be relied upon. He relied on the judgment of Kameshwar Prajapati vs. State of Jharkhand reported in 2005(4) JCR 291 (Jhr.)[: 2005(3) JLJR 776 ]. 3. After going through the impugned order, it appears that the learned Sessions Judge has stated that he is not relying on the date of birth as given in the admission register because there is a wide discrepancy of about 4 years between the age as assessed by the Medical Board and that given in the admission register. 4. The aforesaid finding of the learned Sessions Judge is not correct. He should have given a clear finding that as to why he is not relying on the school register because his parents have also not given date of birth in their evidences. The finding arrived at by the Sessions Judge on the basis of only conjecture and surmises are not correct and hence the same is set aside. 5. He should have given a clear finding that as to why he is not relying on the school register because his parents have also not given date of birth in their evidences. The finding arrived at by the Sessions Judge on the basis of only conjecture and surmises are not correct and hence the same is set aside. 5. The matter is remanded back to the learned trial court for passing a fresh order after giving full opportunity of inquiry to both the parties. The learned Sessions Judge must give a clear finding either that the school leaving certificate is not genuine or otherwise he has got no option but to rely on the same. 6. Accordingly this revision application is allowed and the matter is sent back for fresh consideration by the trial court.