Allahabad High Court
Juvenile Rsr vs State Of U.P. And Another on 5 October, 2023
Bench: Subhash Chandra Sharma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:192538
Court No. - 80
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2575 of 2023
Revisionist :- Juvenile Rsr
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Revisionist :- Dhiraj Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.
Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A for the State and also perused the record.
The present criminal revision has been preferred by the revisionist through his father under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act-2015 (hereinafter referred to as "J.J. Act, 2015) to allow the present revision and set aside the judgment and order dated 18.3.2023 passed by learned Additional Children, Court No.2, Alld in Crl. Appeal No.16 of 2023 as well as order dated 3.1.2023 passed by Juvenile Justice Board,Prayagraj. Further prayed to stay the operation of the aforesaid orders and to release the revisionist on bail in Case Crime No. 56 of 2022, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 411 IPC, Police Station Sarai Inayat, District Prayagraj.
Facts in brief are that the revisionist was held juvenile by the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Prayagraj by order dated 3.1.2023 which was challenged before the learned appellate court and it was set aside while allowing the appeal and claim of juvenility of the revisionist was rejected by the learned appellate court on the basis of date of birth as recorded in the first attending school.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the revisionist that in this case the revisionist took admission in Primary School, Amarsapur, Block Bahadurpur, District Prayagraj in which his date of birth was recorded as 12.1.2000, as per finding recorded by the learned appellate court whereas he studied in Vikas Primary School, Kaserua Kalan, Sahason, District Prayagraj where his date of birth was recorded as 14.7.2004. This was the correct date of birth of the revisionist on the basis of which the learned Juvenile Justice Board declared him to be juvenile. The learned appellate court while setting aside the order passed by the learned Juvenile Justice Board relied upon the date of birth as recorded in the Primary school Amrasapur, Bahadurpur, Prayagraj and denied the date of birth recorded in subsequent school as aforesaid. It is further submitted that where there was doubt regarding the correct date of birth of the revisionist, the learned court might have taken recourse of ossification test for determining his age but it was not done by the learned appellate court, therefore, the order passed by the Juvenile Justice Board cannot be said to be not in conformity with the provision of law as contained under section 94 of the Juvenile Justice Act. Hence, request to set aside the order passed by the learned appellate court and to declare the revisionist juvenile either on the basis of date of birth as recorded in the subsequent school as 14.7.2004 or to get ossification test done and then to decide the claim of the juvenility.
Learned A.G.A opposed the prayer as aforesaid and contended that the revisionist first attended the primary school Amrasapur, Bahadurpur, District Prayagraj where his date of birth was entered into S.R Register as 12.1.2000. Thereafter he did not attend the school as a result his name was discontinued. Later on, he took admission in subsequent school i.e Vikas Primary School, Kaserua Kalan Sahason, Prayagraj where he got his date of birth entered as 12.5.2005, thereafter got it replaced as 14.7.2004 on the basis of an affidavit filed by his father before the head master of that school. In this way the first attended school was primary School Amrasapur, Bahadurpur, Prayagraj where his date of birth was recorded 12.1.2000. This date of birth was the basis of determination of age of the revisionist by the learned appellate court, though it was ignored by the learned Juvenile Justice Board, therefore, the order passed by learned appellate court cannot be said to be illegal or beyond the evidence present on record. There was no any doubt regarding date of birth as recorded in the primary school, therefore, ossification test was not required to be done as per provisions as contained under section 94 of the Act.
Considering the fact and circumstance of the case, submission made by learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A and on perusal of record, the orders passed by the learned Juvenile Justice Board as well as learned appellate court, it appears that the revisionist took admission in class Ist in Primary School Amrasapur, Bahadurpur, Prayagraj where his date of birth was recorded as 12.1.2000. This fact was proved by the head master of the school before the Juvenile Justice Board and copy of S.R Register was also filed in support thereof. On the other hand the clerk of Vikas Primary School, Kaserua Kalan, Sahason, Prayagraj was also got examined before the Board who filed the copy of S.R. Register in which the date of birth was recorded as 12.5.2005 and the admission of the revisionist was said to be taken in class Ist on 2.7.2010 and he studied upto standard five. It was also stated by the witness that on the basis of an affidavit the date of birth of the revisionist was replaced from 12.5.2005 to 14.7.2004.From the material on record, it is evident that the revisionist was admitted in class Ist in two primary schools and his date of birth was recorded in both the schools separately on the basis of information as afforded by his guardian and his first attended school was primary school, Amarasapur, Bahadurpur, Prayagraj where his date of birth was recorded as 12.1.2000 and this entry was also made during discharge of official duty of the teacher of the school and this entry cannot be said to be imaginary or false. On the other hand he took admission in other school in the year 2010 ie Vikas primary school, where two date of births were entered -12.5.2005 and then 14.7.2004. This was subsequent admission of the revisionist. The admission taken by the revisionist in Amarasapur primary school on 12.7.2005 cannot be said to be false or manipulated unless there is any such material on record which is lacking. The learned Juvenile Justice Board did not consider this fact while deciding the claim of juvenility of the revisionist but the learned appellate court has considered all these facts while deciding the appeal and set aside the order passed by the learned Board and rejected the claim of juvenility. There appears no illegality or impropriety in the order passed by the learned appellate court, therefore, it does not require interference by this Court. This revision being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed. As a result this revision is dismissed.
Order Date :- 5.10.2023
G.S
