1. Heard Mr. Mohit Prakash, learned counsel for the petitioner. No one appears on behalf of the State. 2. This application is directed against the order dated 14.10.2015 passed by the learned District & Additional Sessions Judge-I, Gumla in Misc. Case No. 02 of 2015, in connection with Sisai (Bharno) P.S. Case No. 02 of 2015, corresponding to G.R. No. 17 of 2015 (S.T. No. 146 of 2015), whereby and whereunder the application preferred by the petitioner for declaring him to be a juvenile has been rejected. It appears that a First Information Report was instituted by one Sarina Devi to the effect that the petitioner had taken a loan of Rs. 10,000/-from her and on 04.01.2015 the petitioner on the pretext of giving back the loan had forcibly dragged her and had committed rape upon her. Based on the aforesaid allegation Sisai (Bharno) P.S. Case No. 02 of 2015 was instituted for the offence punishable u/s 376 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. During the trial the petitioner had filed an application u/s 7 (A) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 being Misc. Case No. 02 of 2015 to declare him a juvenile. Since the petitioner did not produce any certificate in proof of his age the Medical Board was constituted which assessed the age of the petitioner to be between 19-20 years on the date of his medical examination i.e. 15.07.2015. Pursuant to the report of the Medical Board the learned trial court vide impugned order dated 14.10.2015 had rejected the prayer of the petitioner that he was a juvenile on the date of the occurrence. 4. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned court below merely on the basis of the report of the Medical Board had rejected the application preferred by the petitioner without considering the benefit which accrues to a juvenile in terms of Rule 12 (3)(b) of the Act. It has been submitted that if the benefit of plus minus two years is given to the petitioner coupled with the relaxation as envisaged in Rule 12 (3)(b) of the Act., the petitioner would definitely come within the definition of a juvenile on the date of the occurrence. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his contention has referred to a judgment in the case of Md. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his contention has referred to a judgment in the case of Md. Taslim @ Taslim versus State of Jharkhand reported in 2016 (1) JLJR 199 . 5. The impugned order dated 04.10.2015 reveals that since the petitioner did not produce any proof of his age he was sent for medical examination before the Medical Board for assessment of his age. The report of the Medical Board opined that the age of the petitioner was between 19-20 years on 26.06.2015. 6. In the case of Darga Ram @ Gunga versus State of Rajasthan reported in 2015(2) JBCJ 61 (SC), on consideration of the permissible age relaxation to be granted to an accused claiming to be a juvenile it was held as follows:- “15. The medical opinion given by the duly constituted Board comprising Professors of Anatomy, Radiodiagnosis and Forensic Medicine has determined his age to be “about” 33 years on the date of the examination. The Board has not been able to give the exact age of the appellant on medical examination no matter advances made in that field. That being so in terms of Rule 12(3)(b) the appellant may even be entitled to benefit of fixing his age on the lower side within a margin of one year in case the Court considers it necessary to do so in the facts and circumstances of the case. The need for any such statutory concession may not however arise because even if the estimated age as determined by the Medical Board is taken as the correct/true age of the appellant he was just about 17 years and 2 months old on the date of the occurrence and thus a juvenile within the meaning of that expression as used in the Act aforementioned. Having said that we cannot help observing that we have not felt very comfortable with the Medical Board estimating the age of the appellant in a range of 30 to 36 years as on the date of the medical examination. The general rule about age determination is that the age as determined can vary plus minus two years but the Board has in the case at hand spread over a period of six years and taken a mean to fix the age of the appellant at 33 years. The general rule about age determination is that the age as determined can vary plus minus two years but the Board has in the case at hand spread over a period of six years and taken a mean to fix the age of the appellant at 33 years. We are not sure whether that is the correct way of estimating the age of the appellant. What reassures us about the estimate of age is the fact that the same is determined by a Medical Board comprising professors of Anatomy, Radiodiagnosis and Forensic Medicine whose opinion must get the respect it deserves. That apart even if the age of the appellant was determined by the upper extremity limit i.e. 36 years the same would have been subject to variation of plus minus 2 years meaning thereby that he could as well be 34 years on the date of the examination. Taking his age as 34 years on the date of the examination he would have been 18 years, 2 months and 7 days on the date of the occurrence but such an estimate would be only an estimate and the appellant may be entitled to additional benefit of one year in terms of lowering his age by one year in terms of Rule 12(3)(b) (supra) which would then bring him to be 17 years and 2 months old, therefore a juvenile.” In the case of Md. Taslim @ Taslim versus State of Jharkhand (supra) while considering the judgment passed in the case of Darga Ram @ Gunga versus State of Rajasthan (supra) it was held that the petitioner in that case on the basis of relaxation given to the age assessed by the Medical Board was a juvenile on the date of occurrence. Neither any relaxation with respect to the upper age limit as assessed by the Medical Board has been given nor proper consideration has been made with the relaxation as envisaged in Rule 12(3)(b) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007. The learned trial court has simply declared the petitioner not to be a juvenile by calculating his age on the date of occurrence strictly in terms of the report of the Medical Board without giving any relaxation as has been indicated above. 7. The learned trial court has simply declared the petitioner not to be a juvenile by calculating his age on the date of occurrence strictly in terms of the report of the Medical Board without giving any relaxation as has been indicated above. 7. Such circumstances, therefore, cannot make the impugned order dated 14.10.2015 sustainable in the eye of law and accordingly the same is hereby quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded back to the learned trial court to pass a fresh order in accordance with law and in consonance with the judicial pronouncement referred to above as also the provisions of law indicated therein. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed within a period of one month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order by passing a reasoned order after hearing both the sides. 8. This application stands allowed with the aforementioned observations and directions.