Allahabad High Court
X- Minor vs State Of U.P. And Another on 7 October, 2025
Author: Siddharth
Bench: Siddharth
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:177298
Reserved On:- 09.09.2025
Delivered On:- 07.10.2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2356 of 2023
X- Minor
.....Revisionist(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s)
:
Imran Mabood Khan, Mohd Zubair Khan, Jitendra Singh, Siddharth Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
Deeksha Gupta, G.A., Salman Ahmad
In Chamber
HON'BLE SIDDHARTH, J.
-
Heard Sri Anil Srivastava, learned Senior counsel assisted by Sri Siddharth Srivastava, learned counsel for revisionist; Sri Salman Ahmad, learned counsel for respondent no.2; learned AGA for State and perused the material on record.
-
The present criminal revision has been preferred against the order dated 24.02.2023 passed by the Special Judge (POCSO Act), Azamgarh in Criminal Appeal No. 53 of 2022 and 75 of 2022 (Mohammad Wasif vs. State of U.P.) and order dated 09.05.2022 and 02.07.2022 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, District- Azamgarh.
-
An application was filed on behalf of revisionist for declaring him as juvenile by the Juvenile Justice Board, Azamgarh. The father of the revisionist, Mohd. Arif @ Munna, was examined as C.W.-1. He deposed before the court that he has ten children and revisionist is his third child and was born on 15.11.2004 in village- Langarpur in hospital at the place of her maternal grandfather. He did not stated whether the hospital was government or private and stated that he was not present at the time of his birth. Primary education of revisionist took place in adjoining village in a school. Later he studied in Shibli Nursery School, thereafter he studied in Central Public School, Fariha, Jafarpur and obtained transfer certificate of class-9th. He passed high school from Ram Raj Inter College, Deviet, Mehnagar about two years back. Now he is studying in class-11th in Shibli Inter College.
-
During his cross-examination, C.W.-1 stated that he cannot say whether any birth certificate was issued by the hospital at the time of birth of the revisionist or not. He had not gone to admit the revisionist in the school first attended. In the later school also he sent his friend to get him admitted. On the basis of the transfer certificate issued by Shibli Nursery School, he was admitted in Central Public School and his correct date of birth is 15.11.2004.
-
P.W.-2, mother of revisionist, repeated the contents of statements of C.W.-1 and only stated that probably on the basis of the certificate issued by the hospital, the revisionist was admitted in Shibli Nursery School, Azamgarh. At the time of incident, the revisionist was aged about 16 years. His father, C.W.-1, got him admitted in Shibli Nursery School.
-
C.W.-3, Incharge Head Master, Hiralal Yadav of Shree Ram Raj Inter College, Mustafabad, Rudrapur Deviet, Azamgarh, stated that revisionist studied in his college in class-9th and 10th. He had brought transfer certificate of class-9th fail from Central Public School, Jafarpur, Azamgarh, wherein his date of birth was mentioned as 15.11.2004 and on the basis of the same, he was admitted by him in his school. His father's and mother's name was clearly mentioned in the transfer certificate. Transfer certificate register is duly verified by the D.I.O.S., Azamgarh. During cross-examination, he stated that in S.R. register of his school, there are 100 pages; on page 17 name of revisionist is mentioned. No mobile number has been mentioned in the admission register. On page 15, name of Abu Sabad is mentioned with date of birth as 06.04.1999. On page 16 name of Atiq Ahmad is mentioned with date of birth as 03.05.1992. On page 17 Mohd. Wasif is mentioned with date of birth as 08.08.1998. On page 19 name of Sushil Kumar is mentioned with date of birth as 05.07.1989. The other dates of birth of other students is different from the date of birth of revisionist by 4-5 years. He has not brought the attendance register of the revisionist.
-
C.W.-4, Principal, Rekha Singh, of Central Public School, Jafarpur, deposed that the revisionist took admission in her school on 04.04.2016 in class-8th and after failing in class-9th, he left the school. He was admitted in class-8th on the basis of transfer certificate dated 08.02.2017 issued by Shibli National Girls High School. At the time of admission of revisionist, his date of birth was mentioned by his father and the same was duly recorded.
-
During the cross-examination, she stated that at the time of admission of the revisionist in school, she was not working there when he was admitted in class-8th in 2016. He had not brought the transfer certificate of class-7th. He was admitted in school on the basis of transfer certificate of class-6th. He was issued transfer certificate of class-9th fail.
-
The complainant side filed objection dated 07.12.2020 before the Board stating that the revisionist and his brothers received primary education in Madarsa. His ossification test is required to be conducted since he has not studied in any of the schools claimed. He filed the photostat copy of parivar register of revisionist wherein the date of birth of the revisionist was mentioned as 07.05.1999 and his date of birth mentioned in the Shibli Girls College and with enrollment number. 1000437 was 07.08.2001. In the transfer certificate of Shibli Girls High School his date of birth was mentioned as 08.07.2003 when his enrollment number was nil. No date of issuance of transfer certificate was issued. The complainant side filed the photostat copy of parivar register, student details of Shibli National Girls High School and transfer certificate of Madarsa.
-
The Board found that in the record of Shibli Girls High School, the date of birth of revisionist is recorded as 07.08.2001; in Shibli National Girls High School his date of birth is recorded as 08.07.2003 and in the copy of parivar register his date of birth is recorded as 07.05.1989. Therefore, the Board found that the claim of revisionist set up before the Board is suspicious and called for his ossification test report by the order dated 09.05.2022. In the ossification test report, his age was found to be 20 years as on 26.05.2022 and on the date of incident dated 12.10.2020, his age was found to be 19 years, 2 months and after granting him relaxation of 1 year, 7 months and 14 days in his age, his age was determined as 17 years, 4 months and 16 days by the Board.
-
The aforesaid order was subjected to challenge before the Appellate Court along with challenge to the order dated 09.05.2022 and 02.07.2022 of the Board by way of two criminal appeals. By a common order dated 24.02.2023, the Board dismissed both the appeals and confirmed both the orders passed by Juvenile Justice Board.
-
Learned Senior Counsel for the revisionist has assailed the order passed by the Appellate Court on the ground that both the courts below have failed to consider the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Rishi Pal Singh Solanki vs. State of U.P (2022) 8 SCC 602 and Vinod Katara vs. State of U.P., 2022 0 AIR (SC) 4771. It is submitted that despite the availability of the High School Certificate of the revisionist, the Juvenile Justice Board directed for conducting an ossification test, which was not required. In view of the requirements of Section 92(2) of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. He has relied upon the judgment of this court passed in Criminal Revision No. 4392 of 2023, Salim Ansari vs. State of U.P and Another, has placed reliance on paragraph 6 thereof which is quoted hereinbelow :-
"6. This Court is of the considered view that in the judgment of Vinod Katara (supra), there is no such direction that in case of any discrepancy in the dates of birth recorded in the school, the age of the accused should necessarily be determined on the basis of the ossification test report. In paragraph 7 of the judgment, the Hon'ble Apex Court has clearly held that only in the absence of a birth certificates from the school and a birth certificate issued by the Municipal Authority or Panchayat as per Section 94(2)(i) and (ii) of the Act the ossification test report shall be called in terms of Section 94(2)(iii) of the Act. Therefore, the impugned order of the Appellate Court is contrary to law and is, accordingly, set aside."
-
Counsel for the respondent no. 2 and learned A.G.A have vehemently opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the revisionist and have submitted that the orders of Juvenile Justice Board as well as Appellate Court are in accordance with law and need no interference.
-
After hearing the rival submissions, this court finds that although the high school certificate of the revisionist was filed before the Juvenile Justice Board but the underlying documents of school were found to be doubtful. As per judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sanjeev Kumar Gupta vs. State of U.P., AIR 2019 (SC) 4363, it was not reliable. The Board has considered that he was admitted in class-8th without any transfer certificate produced before the school of class- 7th. There is also contradiction in the statements of C.W.-1 and C.W.-2. While C.W.-1 stated that he had not gone to get the revisionist admitted in nursery school, his wife, C.W.-2, stated that he was admitted in the school by his father, C.W.-1. Photocopy of parivar register bore the date of birth of revisionist as 07.05.1989 which was about 4 years lower than the age of revisionist in the school. However, since the photocopy of parivar register was filed and it was not got proved by any witness from the panchayat as per Section 35 of the Evidence Act, it was not credible. Even otherwise in the transfer certificate register of Central Public School, Jafarpur, the age of other students of the same class was found to be more than 4-5 years from the date of birth of the revisionist. Therefore, the Board doubted the same. The attendance register of the school was also not produced before the Board which raised doubt about the claim of revisionist.
-
Even if the argument of the learned Senior Counsel for the revisionist is accepted that there was no requirement of getting the ossification test of the revisionist conducted, no relief can be granted to the revisionist on the basis of his school record, which was found to be suspicious by the Board.
-
The findings recorded by both the Courts below do not require any interference by this Court.
-
The revision, being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed.
-
Let the lower court record be returned to the trial court within period of one week.
(Siddharth,J.)
October 7, 2025
Rohit
