Allahabad High Court
Juvenile X vs State Of U.P. And Another on 18 August, 2025
Author: Siddharth
Bench: Siddharth
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:139711
Reserved On:-30.07.2025
Delivered On:-18.08.2025
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3917 of 2024
Revisionist :- Juvenile X
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Revisionist :- Saurabh Chaturvedi
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Avnish Kumar Srivastava,G.A.
Hon'ble Siddharth,J.
1. Heard Sri Saurabh Chaturvedi, learned counsel for revisionist; Sri Avnish Kumar Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for State and perused the material on record.
2. The present criminal revision has been filed to set aside the impugned order dated 20.05.2024 passed by Special Judge (POCSO) Court No. 01/Addl. Session Judge, Meerut in Criminal Appeal No. 48/2024 (Juvenile X Vs. State of U.P. and others) as well as impugned order dated 05.03.2024 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Meerut, in Misc. Application No. 180/2023 (Zaid Khan Vs. State) in case crime no. 305 of 2023, under section 302 of IPC, Police Station- Mawana, District- Meerut.
3. An application dated 31-07-2023 was moved on the behalf of 'X' by his mother, Shehnaz. She had stated in her application that on the date of incident her son, 'X' was below 18 years of age and thus should be declared Juvenile. Application was opposed by Aleena, hereinafter referred as 'Complainant who has stated that on the date of incident age of 'X' was above 18 years and he has fabricated documents in order to take benefit he Juvenile Justice Board (Protection and Care of Children) Act, 2015.
4. It was claimed on behalf of revisionist that:-
(1) On the date of incident age of 'X' was below 18 years;
(2) Date of birth of 'X' is 14.08.2005;
(3) He has studied from class 1 to 05 in Indian Valley Public School, Mawana and from class 6 to 10 in Jai Ma Bhadrakali Inter College, Himayupur, Mawana;
(4) Mother of 'X' is filing birth certificate issued by Uttar Pradesh Government, dated 26/12/2016 and
(5) She is also filing Marksheet of class 10th of 'X'.
5. Evidence by Revisionist;
(1) Mother of revisionist got examined herself as AW-I and Meenakshi Upeli w/o Sureshchandra, Principal (Indian Valley J.R. High School, Mawana) as AW-II.
(2) Meenakshi Upeli w/o Sureshchandra, Principal (Indian Valley J.R. High School, Mawana) was examined as AW2. She stated that Juvenile 'X' had taken admission in class 3 on 03.5.2016 (S.R. no. 427) in which his date of birth is 14.08.2005. Admission form of class 03 (Exhibit 'Kha-1'), S.R. Register of class 03-05 (Exhibit 'Kha-2'), Attendance register (Exhibit 'Kha 3' was filed by the witness in support of her statement.
5. Based on the statement of witness AW1 and AW2, Ld. Counsel of 'X' has prayed that on the date of incident 'X' was below 18 years of age as his date of birth is 14.08.2005 which has been proved by the statements of AW1 and AW2 and thus he should be declared juvenile by the board. Complainant has wrongly opposed the application of 'X' stating that he has falsely fabricated his documents in order to take the benefit of juvenile protection act and that on the date of incident he was above 18 years of age.
6. Learned counsel for the complainant has opposed the submissions of counsel for revisionist stating that:-
(1) On the date of incident age of 'X' was above 18 years
(2) Date of birth of 'X' is 13.08.2002
(3) An FIR (264/1999) was lodged under section 307,147, 148, 149, 302, 326 I.P.C., Mawana, Meerut by her father (Raees Ahmad) against Muslim khan who is father of 'X' and punishment of life imprisonment was given to him on 31.03.2003.
(4) After the demise of complainant's father 'X' and his brother (Firoz) had kidnapped the complainant and the report of the same was lodged by complainant's mother, Rihana (case crime no. 107/23).
(5) A stay order was taken by Firoz from Hon'ble High Court in Criminal Writ Petition no. 4280/2023, Firoz Khan and Ors v. U.P. Govt, dated 21.03.23 by showing a Nikahnama of Firoz and complainant in which 'X' was a witness and was above 18 years of age.
(6) An application for issuing birth certificate was moved to SDM Mawana, by father of 'X'
dated 23.02.2021 stating that age of his son 'X' is 13.08.2002.
(7) Medical examination of 'X' was conducted for rectifying his Aadhar card in which his age as on 12.02.21 was determined to be 20 years by the C.M.O.
7. Witness, Ashish Kumar S/o Amit Kumar, Gram Vikas Adhikari. Gram Satla, Mawana was examined as CW-1, who stated that date of birth of 'X' is 13.08.2002 which has been issued from website http:crsorgi.gov.in.
(1) Affidavit was filed by father of 'X' which was given to SDM, Mawana in which his father has stated that age of his son is 13.08.2002. C.M.O. had issued a certificate on 12.03.21 according to which age of 'X' was 20 years and the same is available on portal.
(2) He has further stated that no records of hand-written birth certificate dated 26.12.2016 is available in the office and hence its authenticity cannot be certified.
(3) Learned counsel for complainant submitted photocopy of affidavit filed by 'X' dated 08.03.2021 which he has addressed to SDM, Mawana stating that his date of birth is 13.08.2002 and that he has no educational certificates for the same and has also filed a copy of Pan-card in which date of birth is 13.08.2002.
8. Based on the aforementioned facts order for conducting Medical- Test was passed by the Board dated 15.12.2023 and according to which age of juvenile 'X' was 22 years.
9. The juvenile Justice Board, Meerut, has recorded following findings:-
"Though section 94 of JJ act clearly provides for the hierarchy and according to it only in the absence of matriculation certificate board can rely on other documents, but at this stage board cannot entirely ignore the records filed by the complainant as it is raising doubt regarding age of 'X'. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Prag Bhati v State of Uttar Pradesh (2016) 12 SCC 744 stated, "It is settled position of law that if the matriculation or equivalent certificates are available and there is no other material to prove the correctness of date of birth the date of birth mentioned in the matriculation certificate has to be treated as a conclusive proof of the date of birth of the accused. However, if there is any doubt or a contradictory stand is being taken by the accused which raises a doubt on the correctness of the date of birth then as laid down by this Court in Abuzar Hossain [Abuzar Hossain v. State of W.B., (2012) 10 SCC 489: (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 831, an enquiry for determination of the age of the accused is permissible which has been done in the present case." Similar view has been taken by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sanjeev Kumar Gupta v. State of U.P. 2019(12) SCC 370) and Rishipal Singh Solanki v. State of U.P. (2021) SCC Online S.C.C. 1079.
Though all the school records of 'X' have been verified along with his class 10th marksheet still the same cannot be relied upon as the complainant has submitted various documents which have raised doubts regarding the age of juvenile. In Sanjeev Kumar Gupta v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2019) 12 SCC 370, wherein it was observed that that the date of birth reflected in the matriculation certificate could not be accepted as authentic or credible. In the present case Complainant has filed a certified copy of his date of birth according to which his age is 13.08.2002. Complainant has also filed a copy of affidavit filed by juvenile's father stating that his age is 13.08.2002. Based on all these documents board had passed an order to conduct medical-examination of the juvenile according to which his age was determined to be 22 years. Copy of previous medical-records is also attached in the file according to which juvenile's age was determined to be 20 years on 12.03.2021. Ld. Counsel of the juvenile have argued that medical report must be taken as an expert suggestion and that in itself cannot be relied upon, specially when the matriculation certificate is available on record. Though, point raised by the juvenile is valid that the the medical test is mostly based on the 'degree of fusion of bones' by taking x-ray of few bones but board cannot ignore the contentions raised by the complainant and ignore the evidences filed by them. As the contradictory documents were filed by the complainant during the inquiry and a medical-test was conducted according to which age of juvenile was determined to be 22 years. Ld. Counsel of 'X' has also argued that even though doctors who had done the medical-examination of 'X' were examined by the board but no exhibit has been marked on the medical-report and therefore same cannot be read in evidence. As far as this point is concerned, board is of the opinion that it is a mere irregularity and the doctors were summoned as witness as counsels of 'X' had questioned the medical-report stating that it cannot be relied upon and preference must be given to class 10th marksheet. Medical-examination was done on the order of board and same has been taken into account while deciding the plea of juvenility.
In the light of judgments passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court and High Court and aforementioned reasons application moved by the applicant for holding 'X' juvenile in MISC. APPLICATION NO.-180/2023 and CASE CRIME NO. - 305/23 is hereby rejected. Age of juvenile 'X' is more than 18 years and therefore is not found to be minor on the date of incident. Application moved by Shehnaz, mother of 'X' to declare him as juvenile is hereby rejected. "
10. The revisionist preferred appeal no. 48/2024 against the order dated 05.03.2024 of the Juvenile Justice Board, which was rejected affirming the order of the Juvenile Justice Board.
11. After hearing the rival contentions, this Court finds that the counsel for the revisionist has not been able to prove that in Juvenile Justice Board has committed any legal error in recording the findings noted above.
12. This Court further finds that against the evidence led by the revisionist side claiming that date of birth of the revisionist was 14.08.2005 as per the admission form of Class-3 and S.R. Register of class 3 to 5 of the revisionist, the complainant side filed evidence to prove that the brother of revisionist kidnapped the complainant and F.I.R. was lodged regarding the alleged offence. A writ petition was filed by the brother of revisionist before this Court wherein he brought on record a Nikahnama regarding marriage with the complainant wherein the revisionist was a witness, who cannot be witness without his age being above 18 years. An application made by father of revisionist before the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Mawana, Meerut, dated 23.02.2021 was also brought on record wherein prayer was made for mentioning the date of birth of his son as (revisionist) 13.08.2002. The medical examination of revisionist was conducted for rectifying his Adhar Card and his age on 12.02.2021 was determined as 20 years by the C.M.O. The revisionist side failed to establish that the evidence filed by complainant in rebuttal of the claim of juvenility by the revisionist are not correct and hence the Juvenile Justice Board called for ossification test report from the medical Board wherein his age was found as 22 years. Therefore, the courts have held that the evidence produced by the revisionist side was contradicted by the complainant side and the ossification test was not required at all since the documents issued from school were produced in evidence.
13. In view of the above consideration the orders of the courts below do not suffer from any legal infirmity and are hereby confirmed.
14. The revision lack merits and is hereby dismissed.
Order Date :- 18.8.2025
Abhishek
