JUDGMENT : Heard learned counsel for the appellants as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 2. Gone through the order dated 16.01.2018 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Nawada in Sessions Trial No.46 of 2001 whereby and whereunder appellants Pawan Kumar, Marut Kumar have been declared juvenile in pursuance of order dated 02.11.2017 passed by this Court wherein learned lower court was directed to conduct an inquiry relating to status of the aforesaid two appellants whether they were juvenile on the date of occurrence or not, on a prayer having been raised on their behalf under I.A. no.2197/2017. After going through the order impugned, it is evident that learned lower court had not appreciated the evidence having been collected during course of inquiry nor properly adhered to the legal requirement as prescribed under Section 94(2) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act. For better appreciation the same is quoted below: “Section 94 (2) In case, the Committee or the Board has reasonable grounds for doubt regarding whether the person brought before it is a child or not, the Committee or the Board, as the case may be, shall undertake the process of age determination, by seeking evidence by obtaining — I. the date of birth certificate from the school, or the matriculation or equivalent certificate from the concerned examination Board, if available; and in the absence thereof; II. the birth certificate given by a corporation or a municipal authority or a panchayat; III. and only in the absence of (i) and (ii) above, age shall be determined by an ossification test or any other latest medical age determination test conducted on the orders of the Committee or the Board: Provided such age determination test conducted on the order of the Committee or the Board shall be completed within fifteen days from the date of such order.” 3. There should have been sincere effort at the end of the learned lower court to procure the relevant documents that means to say the date of birth having disclosed in the school first attended. There should have been sincere effort at the end of the learned lower court to procure the relevant documents that means to say the date of birth having disclosed in the school first attended. In likewise manner, in spite of observation having made by the learned lower court that EW-3 Anish Anand was directed to be present with admission register which he failed should have been taken into account in view of paragraph 11 of PW.1 who happens to be father and in likewise manner PW.2, para-4 who happens to be mother. The learned lower court should have considered the event as, whatever documents have been considered at his end that happens to be subsequent to the date of occurrence. Accordingly, the finding having been recorded by the learned lower court is hereby scumbled, remitting the matter to the learned lower court with a direction to proceed afresh and conclude the inquiry strictly in terms of criteria having affixed under Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice Act failing which, will be viewed seriously. 4. The aforesaid exercise must be completed within two months. Office is directed to return back the relevant file (inquire file) and after concluding the inquiry, the learned lower court will transmit its finding along with relevant record as well as documents. 5. Office to list accordingly.