Allahabad High Court
Mohit Alias Gautam vs State Of U.P. And Another on 26 August, 2025
Author: Siddharth
Bench: Siddharth
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:148236
Reserved On:-07.08.2025
Delivered On:-26.08.2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 805 of 2022
HON'BLE SIDDHARTH, J.
1. Heard Sri Navin Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the revisionist; Sri Vivek Tripathi, Advocate, Sri Sudhir Kumar Singh, learned counsel for opposite party no.2; learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record.
2. This revision has been filed to set aside the judgment and order dated 28.10.2021 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge/Special Judge, POCSO Act, Farrukhabad in Criminal Appeal No. 18 of 2021 (Mohit @ Gautam Versus State of U.P. and another) as well as order dated 01.03.2021 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Fategarh, District- Farrukhabad, in case no. 32/2018 (State Vs. Mohit @ Gautam) arising out of case crime no. 656/2015, under section 364, 302, 376-D of IPC and 3/4 of POCSO Act, Police Station- Kayamganj, District- Farrukhabad.
3. The application was moved before the Juvenile Justice Board, Farrukhabad, praying that the revisionist may be declared juvenile since as per the record of Primary School, Narainamau, Farrukhabad. Date of birth of the revisionist, Mohit @ Gautam, was recorded as 17.07.1999. Therefore, on the date of incident dated 27.12.2015, he was aged about 16 years, 5 months and 10 days.
4. The Sessions Judge, directed the Juvenile Justice Board vide order dated 28.02.2017 to inquire as per the law whether the revisionist was juvenile at the time of incident. Before the Juvenile Justice Board, the original copy of the transfer certificate issued by the Basic School, Narainamau, was produced having signature of the Headmaster and his seal certifying the date of birth of revisionist as 17.07.1999 and that he left the school after studying up to class-3. In the voter list name of revisionist was mentioned as Mohit son of Ram Prakash and his age was shown as 22 years. In the parivar register his date of birth was mentioned as 16.03.1994. A certificate issued by Gram Panchayat Narainamau, was filed to prove that Mohit @ Gautam son of Ram Prakash, are one and the same person.
5. Father of the revisionist, Ram Prakash, was examined as C.W.-1. He proved that 8 children were born to him and 4 are alive. Kailash, is eldsest son and thereafter, his two daughters were born and the revisionist is his 4th and youngest son. His name is Mohit, but school name is Gautam. He has studied up to class-3 in Primary School, Narainamau, and his date of birth is 17.07.1999.
6. C.W.-2, In-charge, headmaster of the Primary School, Narainamau, proved that the revisionist was admitted in his school was on 06.07.2006 and his date of birth was recorded as 17.07.1999. He studied up to 31.08.2009 in class-3 and, thereafter, his name was struck of the rolls because of the absence. During cross-examination, the name of revisionist was found in separate S.R. Register entry. C.W.-1, failed to prove, who recorded the entry in the register.
7. Transfer certificate of revisionist was issued on 17.05.2016 by Manmohan Chitravanshi, In-charge headmaster. During cross-examination by the informant side, he admitted that no person named, Mohit Son of Ram Prakash, studied in his school nor he has record of such person. He admitted that at the time of admission of revisionist, he was not employed in the school nor he made any entry of his name in the school register.
8. By the order dated 17.11.2017 the revisionist was declared juvenile by the Juvenile Justice Board.
9. After the order dated 17.11.2017 an objection was filed before the Juvenile Justice Board and the Board reviewed its earlier order dated 17.11.2017 and passed another order dated 01.03.2021 holding that there are two dates of birth of the revisionist, one in his transfer certificate of class-3 and the other in his parivar register and, therefore, directed contribution of Medical Board for ascertaining his age by way of ossification test vide order dated 01.03.2021. The order dated 01.03.2021 was challenged before the Childrens' Court by the revisionist.
10. The appellate court has upheld the order of the Board directing ossification test report of the revisionist by the judgment and order dated 28.10.2021 which has been impugned in this revision.
11. Learned counsel for the revisionist has relied upon paragraph 13 of the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Jodhbir Singh Vs. State of Punjab 2012 LawSuit(SC)786 and has submitted that where the genuineness of the school leaving certificate has not been questioned, the Sessions Court and High Court, are not justified on relying upon certain other statements and record.
12. This Court after hearing the counsel for the parties and considering the material on record finds that there is no power of review vested in Juvenile Justice Board by the statute and, therefore, the review of the order dated 17.07.2017 passed by Juvenile Justice Board earlier and passing of fresh order dated 01.03.2021 by the Board was not justified. Even in the order dated 01.03.2021, the Juvenile Justice Board has not recorded any finding as to how the earlier order passed by the Board on 17.11.2017 was wrong and why reconsideration of the issue of age determination has been made by the Board. The appellate court has also not considered whether the order dated 01.03.2021 was passed by the Board in accordance with law. This Court further finds that once the educational documents were produced before the Board and there was no rebuttal of the same, then as per the section 94(2)(i) of Act, the transfer certificate of the school is required to be given precedence over the date of birth certificate issued by the panchayat, municipal authority etc., and where the date of birth recorded in the school record is available there was no requirement of directing the ossification test of the revisionist by the Medical Board by the Juvenile Justice Board vide order 01.03.2021.
13. Therefore the earlier order of the Juvenile Justice Board, 17.11.2017 was in accordance with law and the subsequent orders of Juvenile Justice Board dated 01.03.2021 and the appellate order dated 28.10.2021 are not in accordance with law and are hereby set aside.
14. The revision is allowed.
15. The revisionist is directed to be tried as juvenile by the Juvenile Justice Board, Farrukhabad.
16. Office is directed to return the trial court within one week.
August 26, 2025
Abhishek
