JUDGMENT 1. - In this criminal revision petition filed under Section 397/401, Cr.P.C., the complainant-petitioner is challenging order dated 20.2.2006 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Pali in Sessions Case No. 135/2004, whereby, application filed by accused non petitioner Mangali was allowed and the case registered against her was sent to the Juvenile Justice Board, Jodhpur treating the accused non-petitioner Mangali as juvenile as on the date of the occurrence. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant petitioner filed F.I.R. on 2.9.2004 at 9 P.M. against non-petitioner No. 2 Mangali for committing murder of Naresh. Upon the said complaint, F.I.R. was registered against accused Mangali under Sections 364, 302 I.P.C. read with Section 3(2)(5), SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. After usual investigation, challan was filed against Mangali for aforesaid offences. 3. After filing challan, charges were framed by the trial Court and prosecution witnesses were examined but, during trial, an application was filed on behalf of the accused Mangali on 25.7.2005 stating therein that on the date on which the alleged occurrence took place the accused was 17 years 10 months old, therefore, trial Court has no jurisdiction to try the case. It was prayed that while declaring accused Mangali juvenile the matter may be transferred to the Juvenile Justice Board for trial. 4. Complainant petitioner filed reply to the said application, in which, it is stated that in the electoral roll of municipal elections for the year 2000 (Ward No. 14, S.No. 219) the age of accused is mentioned as 22 years, therefore, the day on which the occurrence took place she was more than 22 years of age. Some other documents were also filed showing her age more than 18 years. 5. After filing reply, the trial Court proceeded to record evidence of both the parties. The Medical Officer, Govt. Bangar Hospital, Pali gave medical opinion about the age of accused Mangali as per X-ray and clinical examination. The trial Court after hearing both the sides found that accused Mangali is juvenile, therefore, sent her to the Juvenile Justice Board, Jodhpur for trial. 6. The Medical Officer, Govt. Bangar Hospital, Pali gave medical opinion about the age of accused Mangali as per X-ray and clinical examination. The trial Court after hearing both the sides found that accused Mangali is juvenile, therefore, sent her to the Juvenile Justice Board, Jodhpur for trial. 6. The petitioner complainant is challenging the validity of order dated 20.2.2006 on the ground that the trial Court lost sight that document 'teva' (astrological birth chart) filed by non-petitioner Mangali is not proved by the person who has prepared the same showing her date of birth as 30.10.1976. Further, it is submitted that said janmpatri does not bear signature of the person who prepared it and the birth certificate issued by the competent authority on 22.10.2005 filed by the petitioner was also not required to be accepted because it is obtained after the incident, therefore, the impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law because on illegal consideration of evidence the trial Court declared accused Mangali as juvenile on the date of the occurrence. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the trial Court believed the medical evidence of Smt. Mangali which shows her age about 20 years on 24.11.2005 and the incident took place on 1.9.2004, therefore, the finding of learned trial Court declaring Mangali as juvenile is totally illegal. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the trial Court committed gross error while disbelieving the voter-list of Municipal Elections of 2000 filed by the petitioner, in which, age of the petitioner was 22 years in the year 2000. Further, the ration-card is also not considered in right perspective, therefore, the order impugned deserves to be quashed. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention towards judgment of this Court reported in 2007 (1) RCC 139, in the case of Bajrang @ Brijlal v. State of Rajasthan and submits that as per para 13 of the said judgment the voter-list was to be considered for the purpose of ascertaining the age of the accused non-petitioner Mangali, therefore, the order impugned may be quashed and set aside. 9. 9. Per contra, counsel appearing on behalf of the accused Mangali vehemently argued that the order passed by the trial Court is justified for the reason that accused Mangali was in judicial custody and, after releasing on bail, application was filed by her before the trial Court alongwith certain documents including 'janmpatri' and certificate issued by the registering authority. Learned trial Court after taking oral evidence arrived at the finding that accused Mangali is juvenile, in which, there is no illegality. Learned counsel for the non-petitioner further invited my attention towards the fact that although photo stat copy of voter-list was filed along with copy of form filled in by Pura Ram, father of accused Mangali, but those documents were not even proved before the Court by leading evidence whereas janmpatri and birth certificate filed by non-petitioner accused were proved by oral evidence of AW-2 Jhammu, mother of accused Mangali, so also, the trial Court considered the statements of mother of non-petitioner which proves the date of birth mentioned in the janmpatri Ex.P-1, so also, medical evidence proved the fact that non-petitioner was below 18 years of age on the day on which the occurrence took place. Learned counsel-for the non-petitioner invited my attention towards judgment rendered by this Bench, reported in 2006(3) Raj. Cri. Digest 289 (Raj.), in which, this Court held that Court is required to apply its mind only to probative value of the evidence and evidence is required to be proved before the Court. It is, therefore, prayed by learned counsel for the non-petitioner that this petition may be dismissed.I have considered the rival submissions made by both the parties.Admittedly, after release on bail the non-petitioner moved application for determination of her age as on the date of the occurrence which is 1.9.2004. Along with the application, 'janmpatri' said to be prepared at the time of birth of the non-petitioner was produced and to prove the said janmpatri evidence of AW-2 Jhammu, mother of accused non-petitioner was record, in which, she gave statement that date of birth of Mangali is 30.10.1986. It is also proved by her that she got prepared the janmpatri from pandit Mangilal.Similarly, the registering authority also issued the birth certificate of non-petitioner Mangali. It is also proved by her that she got prepared the janmpatri from pandit Mangilal.Similarly, the registering authority also issued the birth certificate of non-petitioner Mangali. Before the trial Court, both these documents were proved by leading oral evidence and these documents were exhibited whereas even the complainant petitioner did not appear before the trial Court for giving his statement regarding determination of the age of non-petitioner Mangali. Further, the photo state copy of the voter-list was also not proved before the Court by leading evidence or exhibiting documents; meaning thereby, in this petition, the petitioner is seeking shelter of those documents which have not been proved before the trial Court and, on the other hand, by leading evidence for determination of age of non-petitioner Mangali oral evidence is adduced before the Court. In my opinion, statement of mother of non-petitioner Mangali is sufficient to prove the fact of birth.of Mangali_because only her mother can say when her child was born. In this - case, mother of the non-petitioner, AW-2 Jhammu appeared before the Court and not only proved the janmpatri got prepared from Mangilal Pandit but gave categorical statement that her daughter was born on 30.10.1986. The petitioner complainant did not lead any evidence to disprove the fact that date of birth of Mangali is 30.10.1986, therefore, the judgment cited by learned counsel for the petitioner does not help him.The trial Court after taking into consideration entire evidence on record and the fact that in the certificate date of birth is 30.10.1986 rightly arrived at the finding that on the date of occurrence the non-petitioner accused was juvenile.On the basis of above discussion, I am of the opinion that the trial Court has rightly determined the age of non-petitioner Mangali and passed justified order declaring non-petitioner juvenile for the purpose of trial by the Juvenile Justice Board, Jodhpur.Hence, this revision petition is dismissed. Record of the case may be sent back forthwith to the Juvenile Justice Board, Jodhpur for trial of the accused.Revision dismissed. *******