juvenility is raised is concerned, it is best left to the Court to determine the age of such person after making an enquiry and taking such evidence as may be necessary. In the instant case, the trial Court did take evidence in the matter and found serious variations in the version emerging from the oral testimony and the documentary evidence on record. The petitioner himself while recording his statement under Section 242 Cr.P.C. indicated his age as 21 years but as per the school leaving certificate, which of course was not a matriculation certificate, the petitioner was minor at the time of alleged commission of offence. The voter list was, however, showing the petitioner major, in that, nobody will have a right to vote unless he has attained the age of majority. The trial Court also found a major discrepancy in the name of the petitioner as mentioned in the challan and the name as was indicated in the school leaving certificate. As per the police challan, the name of the accused is Nazir Ahmed Parray, whereas the date of birth certificate issued by the school authorities pertains to one Murtaza Tariq. The petitioner claims that Nazir Ahmed Parray and Murtaza Tariq are the names of the same person. He has also moved an application for seeking amendment to the name as indicated in the challan, which matter is yet to be considered and determined by the trial Court.
