Balodabazar- Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh v. 1 – State of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Kasdol, District : Balodabazar- Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:8117-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1039 of 2022 1 - Sunil Kumar Nishad S/o Shri Chandulal Nishad, Aged About 21 Years, R/o Village Naya Gordha, P.S. Kashdol, District : Balodabazar- Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus 1 – State of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Kasdol, District : Balodabazar- Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Appellant : Ms. Soniya Kuldeep, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Sakib Ahmed, Panel Lawyer --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J. 17-02-2025 1. The present appeal under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C. has been filed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 06-05-2022 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge FTSC {Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (in short ‘POCSO Act’)} Balodabazar, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara in Special Criminal Case No.14/2021 whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced in the following manner with a direction to run all the jail sentences concurrently: Digitally signed by MOHAMMAD AADIL KHAN Conviction Under Section 6 of POCSO Act U/s 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short ‘the SC/ST Act’) 2 Sentence R.I. for 20 years and fine of Rs.1500/-, in default of payment of fine, further R.I. for one year. Life Imprisonment and fine of Rs.1500/-, in default of payment of fine, further R.I. for one year. Conviction of the appellant is also under Section 376(3) of the IPC. Since the appellant has been sentenced R.I. for 20 years and fine of Rs.1500/-, in default of payment of fine, further R.I. for one year for his conviction under Section 6 of POCSO Act, no separate sentence has been awarded to him under Section 376(3) of the IPC. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 22-10-2019 mother of the victim PW-2, lodged a report to the police with the effect that her minor daughter has informed her that the appellant has committed rape upon her on 08- 10-2019 at about 10-11 p.m. in the night near toilet situated at the adjoining of her house and thereafter he again committed rape upon her
Facts
3-4 times. The police registered the FIR Ex.-16 against the appellant for the offence under Section 376 of the IPC and Section 4 of POCSO Act. The victim was sent for her medical examination to Community Health Center Kasdol where PW-12, Doctor Karuna Yadav has medically examined her and gave report Ex.-P/28. While medical examination of the victim the doctor has not found any external injuries on her body and opined that there is no sign of recent sexual intercourse, no definite opinion can be given on recent sexual intercourse. The victim was referred to her pregnancy test. Two slides of her vaginal swab were prepared, sealed and handed over to the police for its chemical 3 examination. With respect to the age and date of birth of the victim, the police has seized mark sheet of Class 8th of Govt. Middle School Mohtara vide seizure memo Ex.-P/10 and also seized certificate Ex.-P/15 and copy of the school register vide seizure memo Ex.-P/11. The spot map Ex.-P/2 was prepared by the patwari and Ex.-P/8 was prepared by the police. The social status certificate of the victim has also been seized by the police vide seizure memo Ex.-P/6. The underwear of the victim has been seized vide seizure memo Ex.-P/5. The appellant was arrested on 22-10-2019 and he too was sent for his medical examination to Community Health Center Kasdol, where PW-11 Doctor C.S. Painkara has medically examined him and gave report Ex.-P/18A and found the appellant capable to perform sexual intercourse. The underwear of the victim, her vaginal slides and underwear of the appellant were sent for chemical examination to State FSL, Raipur from where report Ex.-P/27 was received and as per the FSL report, no semen and sperms were found in the sent articles. Statement of the witnesses under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. and statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. have been recorded and after completion of usual investigation charge sheet was filed against the appellant for the offence under Section 376 of the IPC and Section 4 of POCSO Act and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act before the learned trial Court. 3. The learned trial Court has framed charges against the appellant under Section 376 of the IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act. The appellant denied the charges, pleaded innocence and claimed trial. 4 4. In order to prove the charges, the prosecution has examined as many as 12 witnesses. The statement of the appellant under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. has also been recorded, in which he denied the circumstances appearing against him, pleaded innocence and has submitted that he has been falsely implicated. He further submitted that he was having love affair with the victim, but due to the fact that they belongs to different caste, the victim was pressurized for lodging of the false report against him and he never made any relation with the victim. 5. After appreciation of the evidence available on record, the learned trial Court has convicted and sentenced the present appellant as mentioned in para 1 of this judgment. Hence, this appeal. 6.
Legal Reasoning
court. In case of an inquiry, the Court records a prima facie conclusion but when there is a determination of age as per sub-section (2) of section 94 of 2015 Act, a declaration is made on the basis of evidence. Also the age recorded by the JJ Board shall be deemed to be the true age of the person brought before it. Thus, the standard of proof in an inquiry is different from that required in a proceeding where the determination and declaration of the age of a person has to be made on the basis of evidence scrutinised and accepted only if worthy of such acceptance. 33.6. That it is neither feasible nor desirable to lay down an abstract formula to determine the age of a person. It has to be on the basis of the material on record and on appreciation of evidence adduced by the parties in each case. 33.7 This Court has observed that a hypertechnical approach should not be adopted when evidence is adduced on behalf of the accused in support of the plea that he was a juvenile. 33.8. If two views are possible on the same evidence, the court should lean in favour of holding the accused to be a juvenile in borderline cases. This is in order to ensure that the benefit of the JJ Act, 2015 is made applicable to the juvenile in conflict with law. At the same time, the Court should ensure that the JJ Act, 2015 is not misused by persons to escape punishment after having committed serious offences. 33.9. That when the determination of age is on the basis of evidence such as school records, it is necessary that the same would have to be considered as per Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act, inasmuch as 10 any public or official document maintained in the discharge of official duty would have greater credibility than private documents. 33.10. Any document which is in consonance with public documents, such as matriculation certificate, could be accepted by the Court or the JJ Board provided such public document is credible and authentic as per the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act viz., section 35 and other provisions. 33.11. Ossification Test cannot be the sole criterion for age determination and a mechanical view regarding the age of a person cannot be adopted solely on the basis of medical opinion by radiological examination. Such evidence is not conclusive evidence but only a very useful guiding factor to be considered in the absence of documents mentioned in Section 94(2) of the JJ Act, 2015.” 15. In case of P. Yuvaprakash Vs. State represented by Inspector of Police, reported in 2023 (SCC Online) SC 846, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in para 14 to 17 as under : “14. Section 94 (2)(iii) of the JJ Act clearly indicates that the date of birth certificate from the school or matriculation or equivalent certificate by the concerned examination board has to be firstly preferred in the absence of which the birth certificate issued by the Corporation or Municipal Authority or Panchayat and it is only thereafter in the absence of these such documents the age is to be determined through “an ossification test” or “any other latest medical age determination test” conducted on the orders of the concerned authority, i.e. Committee or Board or Court. In the present case, concededly, only a transfer certificate and not the date of birth certificate or matriculation or equivalent certificate was considered. Ex. C1, i.e., the school transfer certificate showed the date of birth of the victim as 11.07.1997. Significantly, the transfer certificate was produced not by the prosecution but instead by the court summoned witness, i.e., CW-1. The burden is always upon the prosecution to establish what it alleges; therefore, the prosecution could not have been fallen back upon a document which it had never relied upon. Furthermore, DW-3, the concerned Revenue Official (Deputy Tahsildar) had stated on oath that the records for the year 1997 in respect to the births and deaths were missing. Since it did not answer to the description of any class of documents mentioned in Section 94(2)(i) as it was a mere transfer certificate, Ex C-1 could not have been relied upon to hold that M was below 18 years at the time of commission of the offence. 11 15. In a recent decision, in Rishipal Singh Solanki vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. this court outlined the procedure to be followed in cases where age determination is required. The court was dealing with Rule 12 of the erstwhile Juvenile Justice Rules (which is in pari materia) with Section 94 of the JJ Act, and held as follows: “20. Rule 12 of the JJ Rules, 2007 deals with the procedure to be followed in determination of age. The juvenility of a person in conflict with law had to be decided prima facie on the basis of physical appearance, or documents, if available. But an inquiry into the determination of age by the Court or the JJ Board was by seeking evidence by obtaining: (i) the matriculation or equivalent certificates, if available and in the absence whereof; (ii) the date of birth certificate from the school (other than a play school) first attended; and in the absence whereof; (iii) the birth certificate given by a corporation or a municipal authority or a panchayat. Only in the absence of either (i), (ii) and (iii) above, the medical opinion could be sought from a duly constituted Medical Board to declare the age of the juvenile or child. It was also provided that while determination was being made, benefit could be given to the child or juvenile by considering the age on lower side within the margin of one year.” 16. Speaking about provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act, especially the various options in Section 94 (2) of the JJ Act, this court held in Sanjeev Kumar Gupta vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors that: “Clause (i) of Section 94 (2) places the date of birth certificate from the school and the matriculation or equivalent certificate from the 2021 (12) SCR 502 [2019] 9 SCR 735 concerned examination board in the same category (namely (i) above). In the absence thereof category (ii) provides for obtaining the birth certificate of the corporation, municipal authority or panchayat. It is only in the absence of (i) and (ii) that age determination by means of medical analysis is provided. Section 94(2)(a)(i) indicates a significant change over the provisions which were contained in Rule 12(3)(a) of the Rules of 2007 made under the Act of 2000. Under Rule 12(3)(a)(i) the matriculation or equivalent certificate was given precedence and it was only in the event of the certificate not being available that the date of birth certificate from the school first attended, could be obtained. In Section 94(2)(i) both the date 12 of birth certificate from the school as well as the matriculation or equivalent certificate are placed in the same category. 17. In Abuzar Hossain @ Gulam Hossain Vs. State of West Bengal, this court, through a three-judge bench, held that the burden of proving that someone is a juvenile (or below the prescribed age) is upon the person claiming it. Further, in that decision, the court indicated the hierarchy of documents that would be accepted in order of preference.” 16. The victim PW-1 has stated in her evidence that her date of birth is 10-03-2004. In cross-examination she stated that she disclosed her date of birth on her own knowledge. 17. PW-2 mother of the victim has stated that the victim is aged about 16 years. In cross-examination she has stated that she has got married since 18-19 years back and after one year of their marriage the victim born. She did not know the date of birth of the victim and she had not gone to the school for her admission. She voluntarily stated that her husband had gone to school for her admission. 18. PW-3, father of the victim has also not disclosed any date of her birth and stated that she is aged about 16 years. In cross-examination he too has stated that he has got married since 19-20 years back and after about 1 year of his marriage the victim borne. He voluntarily stated that the vicetim has borne after 2½ – 3 yars of his marriage. He denied that he disclosed the date of birth of the victim on the basis of her mark sheet. He voluntarily stated that the date of birth of the victim is 10-03-2004. 19. From all these evidence when the prosecution could not produce any documentary evidence like birth certificate, kotwari register or 13 ossification test report, only on the basis of oral statement of the witnesses, the determination of age of the victim is very difficult. In view of the quality of the evidence produced by the prosecution with respect to the age of the victim, it cannot be said that the prosecution has proved age of the victim beyond reasonable doubt by producing cogent and clinching evidence that she was minor and less than 18 years of age on the date of incident, yet the learned trial Court has held her minor. 20. So far as involvemment of the appellant in offence in question is concerned, we again examine the evidence of the vicim, PW-1. She has stated in her evidence that she and the appellant likes each other and regularly talk through phone. The appellant proposed her and used to come to her hsoue in the night where they met with each other. The appellant made physical relation with her. He made physical relation with her 3-4 times. In cross-examination she admitted that she knows her well being. She and the appellant were liking each other since one year and due to their love affair they used to talk with each other and fix the place for meeting. Both of them wanted to marry with each other. When their relationship came into knowledge of their parents they asked her not to meet him despite that they used to meet with each other. Whenever they meet each other they talked about their relationship. She further admitted that her house is situated in the dense locality and the houses of others are adjoining to her house. Their love affair was going on since 2018 and she could not remember as to terms of sexual intercourse which the appellant has committed with her. She had not lodged any report against the appellant with respect to the offence of rape. She disclosed her 14 parents that she is loving the appellant and wants to marry with him for which her parents were scolded her and said that since she has not attained the age of majority their marriage could not be possible. They also stated that due to their different caste, their marriage could not be possible. In further cross-examination she admitted that her parents have disclosed their relationship to her elder father and thereafter she along with the appellant and two other persons and her father had goen to police station. On the date when they lodged the report she disclosed their love affair to her father. She herself had called the appellant to her house. 21. From the evidence of the victim PW-1 it is quite vivid that she was in love affair with the appellant. She has not raised any alarm and has not made any objection on 2-3 occasion. Both of them were in love affair and wanted to marry with each other, but due their relationship came into knowledge of their parents report has been lodged.It is not the case that the victim has raised any objection or protested from making physical relation by the appellant with her. When it is found that she was a major girl, she was able to give her consent to engaged in consensual physical relation with appeallant as she herself stated that she was in love affair with the appellant and made physical relation with him on 2-3 occasion and has not made any complaint to anyone against the act of the appellant, it can safely be held that she was a consenting party in making physical relation with the appellant. 15 22. PW-2 mother of the victim has stated that there was love affair going on between her daughter and the appellant since last 1 year. After the incident the victim has disclosed about their love affair to them. From the evidence of the mother of the victim, it is quite vivid that they were knowledge of love affair of the victim with the appellant and physical relation, they tried to convince the victim that their marriage could not be possible due to their community. 23. PW-3 father of the victim is also witness to the same evidence as the mother of the victim has stated and he too has stated that they tried to convince the appellant and when the appellant as well as his daugter has not understood the situation, they have lodged the report. 24. All these evidence of the victim and her parents goes to prove that the victim was having love affair with the appellant which was in knowledge of her parents. She herself engaged in making physical relation with the appellant without raising any objection. Since it is not the case of the victim that she protested/objected while making physical relation by her, there is no need to discuss about the medical examination of the victim, even otherwise from the evidence of PW-12 Doctor Karuna Yadav, no external injury were found on the body of the victim and no sign of any struggle. 25. The version of the victim commands great respect and acceptability, but if there are some circumstances which cast some doubt in the mind of the court on the veracity of the victim's evidence, then it will not be safe to rely on the said version of the victim. There is contradiction and omissions 16 in the statement of the victim and her parents. The law is well settled that in case of rape, conviction can be maintained even on the basis of sole testimony of the victim. However, there is an important caveat which is that the testimony of the victim must inspire confidence. Even though the testimony of the victim is not required to be corroborated, if her statement is not believable, then the accused cannot be convicted. The prosecution has to bring home the charges levelled against the appellant beyond any reasonable doubt, which the prosecution has failed to do in the instant case. 26. From the aforesaid consideration, we are of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant that he committed rape upon the victim, therefore, no offence of rape under Section 376(3) of the IPC or Section 6 of POCSO Act are made out against the appellant. 27. So far as offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act is concerned, if the accused is not convicted and is not found guilty for the offence under the IPC, he cannot be convicted under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act. Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act provides definition as under:- “3. Punishment for offences of atrocities. - (1) Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe. XXX XXX XXX (2) Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribes. XXX XXX XXX (v) commits any offence under the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) 17 punishable with imprisonment for a term of ten years or more against a person or property [knowing that such person is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe or such property belongs to such member], shall be punishable with imprisonment for life and with fine;” 28. From perusal of the aforesaid provision of Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act and it is quite clear that in absence of conviction under the IPC for offence punishable with imprisonment for ten years or more, the accused cannot be convicted for the offence under the SC/ST Act. In the present case the appellant has been acquitted from the offence of Section 376(3) of the IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act and since there is no conviction of the appellant under the IPC, he cannot be convicted under the SC/ST Act and therefore, the appellant is acquitted from the offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act also. 29. For the foregoing consideration the appeal filed by the appellant is allowed. The impugned judgment of conviction and sentences are hereby set aside. The appellant is acquitted from all the alleged offences. The appellant is reported to be in jail since 22- 10-2019. He be released forthwith if not required in any other case. 30 Keeping in view the provisions of Section 481 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the appellant- Sunil Kumar Nishad is directed to furnish a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety in the like amount before the Court concerned which shall be effective for a period of six months along with an undertaking that in the event of filing of Special Leave 18 Petition against the instant judgment or for grant of leave, the aforesaid appellant, on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 31. The trial Court record along with a copy of this judgment be sent back to the trial Court concerned for compliance and necessary action. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Aadil
Arguments
Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the prosecution has failed to prove its cae beyond reasonable doubt. There are material contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses which cannot be made basis to convict the appellant in offence in question. There is no cogent and clinching evidence with respect to age of the victim that she was minor on the date of incident. The school register produced by the prosecution has not been proved in accordance with law and there is no other evidence available in the record which proves that the victim was minor on the date of incident. There is no birth certificate or occsification test report of the victim produced by the prosecution and in absence of any cogent and clinching evidence her age cannot be determined that she was minor and less than 18 years of age on the date of incident. She would further submit that the victim was having love affair with the 5 appellant and she herself has made physical relation with him on her own will without raising any objection. She engaged in making consensual physical relation with the appellant and has not made any complaint to anyone and when their relation came into knowledge of their parents they lodged the report by pressurizing the victim for the same. She being major girl having engaged in making consensual physical relation no offence of rape is made out against the appellant and he is entitled for acquittal. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant and has submitted that the the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. There are sufficient evidence against the appellant in the case to convict him for the alleged offence. The victim was found to be minor on the date of incident and the school record has been proved by PW-7 who is Assistant Teacher of the school. The minor victim was subjected to sexual intercourse by the appellant. The victim being minor was not competent to give her consent and therefore, making physical relation with a minor girl itself amounts to offence of rape for which the learned trial Court has rightly considered the evidence of the victim as well as other evidences and convicted him for the alleged offence. He would further submit that even if no injuries have been found on the body of the victim it does not makes the prosecution case doubtful as injury in every case is not required to be found on body of the victim and it depends upon the facts of each case. In the present case there are overwhelming evidence against the appellant and his appeal is liable to be dismissed. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, and perused the 6 record. 9. The first and foremost question arose for consideration would be age of the victim as to whether on the date of incident she was minor or not. 10. The prosecution has mainly relied upon school register Ex.-P/14C and admission and discharge certificate Ex.-P/15 which are sought to be proved by PW-7, who is Assistant Teacher of school. He stated in his evidence that he is Assistant Teacher in Govt. Primary School Goradha since 21-02-2006. The police has seized school register vide seizure memo Ex.-P/11 and after retaining attested true copy Ex.-P/14C the original register Ex.-P/15 was returned back to him. According to the school register, the date of birth of the victim is 10-03-2004. He also issued the certificate Ex.-P/15 with respect to the date of birth of the victim. In cross-examination he admitted that he prepared the certificate Ex.-P/15 on the basis of entried made in the school register Ex.-P/14. He further admitted that the entries made in the school register Ex.-P/14 have not been made by him. He further admitted that in rural areas parents have to admitted their children in the school by disclosing their date of birth on assumption. He voluntarily stated that they are also obtaining the date of birth of the children from Anganbadi. He further admitted that in school register Ex.-P/14 it is not mentioned that who had come for her admission in the school. 7 11. From the evidence of this witness it is quite vivid that he is not author of the school register, nor the basis on which the entries have been made in the school register is available with the school register Ex.-P/14C and the certificate Ex.-P/15. 12. The admissibility and evidentiary value of the school register is considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Alamelu and Another Vs. State, represented by Inspector of Police, reported in 2011 (2) SCC 385, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the transfer certificate which is issued by government school and is duly signed by the Headmaster would be admissible in evidence under Section 35 of the Evidence Act 1872. However, the admissibility of such a document would be of not much evidentiary value to prove the age of the prosecutrix in the absence of any material on the basis of which the age was recorded. 13. In paragraphs 40, and 48 of its judgment in Alamelu (Supra), the Supreme Court has observed as under : “40. Undoubtedly, the transfer certificate, Ex.P16 indicates that the girl's date of birth was 15th June, 1977. Therefore, even according to the aforesaid certificate, she would be above 16 years of age (16 years 1 month and 16 days) on the date of the alleged incident, i.e., 31st July, 1993. The transfer certificate has been issued by a Government School and has been duly signed by the Headmaster. Therefore, it would be admissible in evidence under Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act. However, the admissibility of such a document would be of not much evidentiary value to prove the age of the girl in the absence of the material on the basis of which the age was recorded. 48. We may further notice that even with reference to Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act, a public document has to be tested by applying the same standard in civil as well as criminal proceedings. In this context, it would be 8 appropriate to notice the observations made by this Court in the case of Ravinder Singh Gorkhi Vs. State of U.P.4 held as follows:- "The age of a person as recorded in the school register or otherwise may be used for various purposes, namely, for obtaining admission; for obtaining an appointment; for contesting election; registration of marriage; obtaining a separate unit under the ceiling laws; and even for the purpose of litigating before a civil forum e.g. necessity of being represented in a court of law by a guardian or where a suit is filed on the ground that the plaintiff being a minor he was not appropriately represented therein or any transaction made on his behalf was void as he was a minor. A court of law for the purpose of determining the age of a (2006) 5 SCC 584 party to the lis, having regard to the provisions of Section 35 of the Evidence Act will have to apply the same standard. No different standard can be applied in case of an accused as in a case of abduction or rape, or similar offence where the victim or the prosecutrix although might have consented with the accused, if on the basis of the entries made in the register maintained by the school, a judgment of conviction is recorded, the accused would be deprived of his constitutional right under Article 21 of the Constitution, as in that case the accused may unjustly be convicted." 14. In case of Rishipal Singh Solanki Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others, 2022 (8) SCC 602, while considering various judgments, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed in para 33 as under : “33. What emerges on a cumulative consideration of the aforesaid catena of judgments is as follows: 33.2.2. If an application is filed before the Court claiming juvenility, the provision of sub-section (2) of section 94 of the JJ Act, 2015 would have to be applied or read along with sub-section (2) of section 9 so as to seek evidence for the purpose of recording a finding stating the age of the person as nearly as may be. XXXX XXXX XXX 33.3. That when a claim for juvenility is raised, the burden is on the person raising the claim to satisfy the Court to discharge the initial 9 burden. However, the documents mentioned in Rule 12(3)(a)(i), (ii), and (iii) of the JJ Rules 2007 made under the JJ Act, 2000 or sub-section (2) of section 94 of JJ Act, 2015, shall be sufficient for prima facie satisfaction of the Court. On the basis of the aforesaid documents a presumption of juvenility may be raised. 33.4. The said presumption is however not conclusive proof of the age of juvenility and the same may be rebutted by contra evidence let in by the opposite side. 33.5. That the procedure of an inquiry by a Court is not the same thing as declaring the age of the person as a juvenile sought before the JJ Board when the case is pending for trial before the concerned criminal