Pravind Kumar Alias Tuntun Kumar vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others
2025 Latest Caselaw 2440 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Pravind Kumar Alias Tuntun Kumar vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 23 July, 2025

Author: Siddharth

Bench: Siddharth

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


					Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:121129	
 
							RESERVED ON 7.7.2025
 
							DELIVERED ON 23.7.2025
 
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3434 of 2024
 

 
Revisionist :- Pravind Kumar Alias Tuntun Kumar
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Revisionist :- Achyut Jee
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sudhir Kumar Shukla
 

 
Hon'ble Siddharth,J. 
 

Heard Shri Achyut Jee , learned counsel for the revisionist; Shri Krishna Kumar Mishra holding brief of Shri Sudhir Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the opposite party no.3; learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.

The present criminal revision has been filed to quash the order dated 5.4..2024 passed by the court of Special Judge( POCSO Act), Court No.8, Ballia in Criminal Appeal No. 43 of 2022, whereby the same has dismissed the Criminal Appeal and affirmed the order dated 19.9.2022 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Ballia in Misc. Case no. 36 of 2019 arising out of case crime no. 10 of 2019 under Section 307,452,506 I.P.C. P.S. Gadwar, District Ballia whereby the Board declared the revisionist major and rejected his application.

The basic facts of the case are that F.I.R. was lodged by respondent no.3 on 18.01.2019 at 17.46 hrs regarding the incident which took place on 18.01.2019at 08.30 hrs in case crime no.10/2019 under section 307,452, 506 IPC at P.S.Gadwar, District Ballia. On 10.04.2019 an application for declaring the accused juvenile was moved on the basis of High School Marksheet which shows his date of birth as 17.10.2004. Respondent no,3 produced transfer certificate of one Praveen Kumar ( revisionists name is Pravind Kumar) showing date of birth as 17.10.2002.Juvenile Justice Board accepted transfer certificate produced by respondent no.3 and ordered conducting ossification test. Juvenile Justice Board accepted the medical report submitted by the office of the Chief Medical Officer. Initially in report dated 17.01.2022, age of revisionist was determined about 20 years. The said report is submitted in court on 04.06.2022.

Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that as per section 94 (2) of Juvenile Justice Act, transfer certificate cannot be relied upon to determine the age of

juvenile. Transfer certificate produced by the respondent no.3, is of one Praveen Kumar (which certainly does not relate with revisionist whose name is Pravind Kumar). In the light of section 94 (2) of Juvenile Justice Act if school certificate is available, ossification test is not required.Both the courts below illegally relied upon Medical report which is totally forged and manipulated. Appellate Court has recorded wrong finding regarding the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P. Yuva Prakash Vs. State.

Learned counsel for the revisionist has relied upon the judgement of Apex court in the case of Rishipal Singh Solanki Vs. State of U.P. & Ors., 2021 LawSuit (SC)741 and Pawan Kumae Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & ors. Reported in Criminal Appeal No.3548 of 2023 (arising out of SLP(CRL) No. 7957 of 2021.

Learned counsel for the opposite party no.3 has opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the revisionist and has submitted that matriculation certificate of the revisionist can not be accepted to be authentic or credible without any document in its support . He has relied upon the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Sanjeev Kumar Gupta Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, AIR, 2019, Supreme Court, 4364.

After hearing the rival submissions and going through the case laws placed before this court, it appears that both the courts below have refused to declare the revisionist as juvenile on the ground that his high school certificate was not supported by any other document. The revisionist was admitted in class IX in Mahant Viswanath Pati Inter college and earlier he was studying in Madyamic Vidaylaya, Sawan, Ballia. He was admitted in class IX on 5.7.2016 on the basis of transfer certificate issued by Madhyamic Vidalaya, Sawan, Ballia but the incharge principal of the aforesaid Madhyamic Vidayala stated that he was admitted in his school in class VI but he is not in possession of transfer certificate of class V of the revisionist on the basis of which revisionist was admitted in class VI. However he proved that date of birth of the revisionist was recorded in his Madhyamic Vidalaya as 17.10.2002.The principal of Mahant Viswanath Vidaylya proved that transfer certificate was issued by the earlier principal of institution but who received the same he cannot say. It is clear that in the transfer certificate issued by the Junior High School and High School certificate of the revisionist his date of birth were not the same. In transfer certificate of Junior High School his date of birth was 17.10.2002 and in the high school mark-sheet was 17.2. 2004.

Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that in the transfer certificate the name of the revisionist was not correct. His name was mentioned as Praveen Kumar when his name is Pravind Kumar.

However this court finds that the name of the father of the revisionist ,Praveen Kumar,has been shown as Jay Nath Ram in the transfer certificae. As per section 94 (2) (i)of Juvenile Justice Act the date of birth certificate from the school or matriculation examination is relevant for the purpose of determination of age of juvenile .In this case transfer certificate from the school proved that his date of birth was 17.10.2002 and in Matriculation certificate proved tht his date of birth was 17.10.2004. Both the documents were available and therefore it can not be said that they were absent and hence birth certificate of the Corporation/ Municipality authority/ ,Panchayat should have been produced and only in the absence of both the above certificates, ossification test report could have been ordered. In this case, if there was contradiction in transfer certificate of the school and the matriculation certificate, even if the school certificate showing that date of birth of revisionist as 17.10.2002 was accepted, the revisionist was still below 18 years of age on the date of incident dated 18.01.2019.There was no occasion for the Board to get ossification test report of the revisionist conducted, when the school certificate and matriculation certificates were available. The Apex Court in the case of Rishipal Singh Solanki(Supra) has held in paragraph-29 (sub-clause vii) that hyper-technical approach in appreciation of evidence adduced on behalf of accused in support of the plea that he was juvenile should not be adopted. In sub-clause (viii,) it has been held that if two views are possible on the same evidence, the court should lean in favour of accused holding him to be juvenile.In Sub-clause (x) it has been held that the matriculation certificate is acceptable provided it is credible and authentic . In sub-clause (xi) the Apex Court held that the ossification test cannot be the sole criteria of age determination and a mechanical view regarding the age of a person cannot be adopted on its basis. The Apex Court in the case of Pawan Kumar (Supra) in paragraph-30, 31 and 32 has also held that ossification test report is not accurate and if two views are possible, one in favour of accused should be taken as correct and in favour of juvenile .

The judgement of Sanjeev Kumar Gupats(Supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent no.2 is distinguishable on facts of this case. In the present case the date of birth of the revisionist was recorded as 17.10.2002 in the transfer certificate of school and in the matriculation certificate his date of birth is 17.10.2004.On the date of incident dated 18.1.2019 he was below 18 years on the basis of school certificate and also the matriculation certificate .Therefore there was no doubt that revisionist was juvenile on the date of incident. However in the case of Sanjeev Kumar Gupta (Supra) the date of incident was 28.10.2015 and from the school record accused was found to have been born on 17.12.1995, when as per matriculation certificate his date of birth was 17.12.1998,therefore from the school certificate he was about 20 years at the time of incident. In the present case accused was below 18 years of age as per school certificate itself therefore the judgment of Apex Court in Sanjeev Kumar Gupta (supra) is of no help to the opposite party no.3..

The judgement and orders passed by both the court below are not based on proper appreciation of material on record and also relevant laws.Hence they are set aside and revisionist is declared as juvenile and required to be tried by the juvenile justice Board.

In view of the above, the revision is allowed.

Order Date :- 23.7.2025

Atul kr. sri.