Allahabad High Court
Zeeshan 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:177258
Reserved On:- 28.08.2025
Delivered On:- 07.10.2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 4484 of 2024
Zeeshan
.....Revisionist(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s)
:
Sandeep Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
Aditya Sharma, G.A., Gauri Singh, Madan Gopal Sharma
In Chamber
HON'BLE SIDDHARTH, J.
-
Heard Shri Abhishek Singh, holding brief of Shri Sandeep Mishra, learned counsel for the revisionist, Shri Aditya Sharma, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2, learned A.G.A. for the State- respondent and perused the trial court record.
-
The present criminal revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 02.07.2024 passed by Children's Court / Special Judge (POCSO-Ist), Gautam Buddha Nagar, in Criminal Appeal No. 49 of 2024 (Zeeshan vs. State of U.P.) arising out of order dated 28.03.2023 passed by Court of Juvenile Justice Board, Gautam Buddha Nagar in Case Crime No. 296 of 2020, under Sections- 302, 394, 411 IPC, Police Station- Dankaur, District- Gautam Buddha Nagar.
-
The brief facts of the case are that the revisionist was charge sheeted in Case Crime No. 296 of 2020, under Sections- 302, 394, 411 IPC and the Juvenile Justice Board by its order dated 20.11.2020 declared the revisionist as aged about 16 years, 3 months and 18 days on the basis of his date of birth of 03.02.2004 mentioned in his educational documents. The Board also got his ossification test conducted and on 06.08.2020 he was to be aged 21 years.
-
The informant challenged the order dated 20.11.2020 of the Juvenile Justice Board before the Children's Court which found the educational documents of the revisionist doubtful and remanded the matter to the Juvenile Justice Board by the order dated 29.07.2021 for determination of the age of revisionist on the basis of his medical examination again and redetermined his age and conduct his preliminary assessment or being tried as adult who has committed heinous offence.
-
After remand from the Children's Court, fresh medical examination of the revisionist was directed by the Board and his age was found to be 18 years as per the medical report dated 28.08.2021. Therefore, the Board by its order dated 06.10.2021 again declared him juvenile on the basis of the medical report.
-
The informant again approached the Children's Court again that in the earlier medical report dated 06.08.2020 the age of revisionist was found to be 21 years but in the medical report dated 28.08.2021 his age has been found to be 18 years. Therefore, ossification test report should again be conducted and accordingly the Chief Medical Officer was directed to submit fresh ossification test report which was submitted on 23.06.2022 with the finding that the age of revisionist is 20 years.
-
The Juvenile Justice Board again by the order dated 15.09.2022 on the basis of ossification test report dated 23.06.2022 declared his age on the date of incident as 17 years, 10 months and 28 days.
-
Again the Appeal No. 100 of 2022 was preferred by the informant before the Children's Court on the ground that the ossification test report show variance of age of four years and therefore the fresh order be passed for ascertaining the correct age of revisionist. Accordingly, the ossification test was again ordered and from the report dated 16.03.2023 of the C.M.O the age of revisionist was determined as 22 years. On the basis of report of C.M.O dated 16.03.2023 serving the age of revisionist as 22 years. The Board determined his age as 19 years 02 months and 07 days at the time of incident dated 21.05.2020 and declared him adult and to be tried as such by the Competent Court.
-
The order dated 28.03.2023 of the Juvenile Justice Board was challenged before the Children's Court which has affirmed the order dated 28.03.2023 filed by Juvenile Justice Board and hence this revision.
-
Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the impugned orders passed by both the courts below are not in accordance with law and deserves to be set aside.
-
He has further submitted that in the last ossification test report dated 16.03.2023 the elbow and wrist of the revisionist were found to be almost fused but when they got fused was not described nor any x-ray report was annexed.
-
The Appellate Court accepted the report without calling for any objection on the same from the revisionist. He has further submitted that since they were conflicting ossification test report, therefore one in favour of revisionist should have been accepted by the court.
-
Learned counsel for the informant has submitted that the revisionist did not approached the court with clean hands.
-
School leaving certificate dated 31.03.2015 is a fabricated piece of document as the aunt of revisionist/applicant, namely, Aarfa Khan, has herself admitted to the fact that she was a teacher in Primary Maktab (Madarsa), Bilaspur, and she herself wrote the birth date of revisionist/accused in the above-mentioned Madarsa. To this forgery committed by the aunt of revisionist/accused, the manager of the above-mentioned Madarsa filed his objection on dated - 27.10.2020 (on page 45 of Criminal Revision). Furthermore, regarding the Leaving Certificate from Class- 6th of Dr. Rajendra Prasad Inter College, Bilaspur, Distt.- Gautam Buddha Nagar, dated- 23.09.2020, it is also contradictory to the fact that the revisionist/accused has himself admitted in the Subordinate court that he studied from class 1st to 3rd in Sanjay Balcony Ketan Public School, Sikandarabad, Distt.- Ghaziabad and thereafter he didn't study from class 4th to 5th in any school and he took direct admission in Class- 6th of Dr. Rajendra Prasad Inter College, Bilaspur, Distt.- Gautam Buddha Nagar (on page 47 of Criminal Revision). But the Court Witness (C.W.) namely- Seema Saini (Principal of Sanjay Balcony Ketan Public School) admitted in the Subordinate Court that there was no student by the name of Zeeshan (revisionist/accused) in the records of her school. Moreover, at the time of taking admission in Dr. Rajendra Prasad Inter College, Bilaspur, Dist. - Gautam Buddha Nagar, revisionist/accused furnished his Class- 5th Transfer Certificate from Primary Maktab (Madarsa), Bilaspur, which is in total contradiction to his statement given in Sub-ordinate Court (on page 47 of Criminal Revision). The Leaving Certificates dated- 31.03.2015 and 23.09.2020 both have D.O.B.- 03.02.2004 which is contradictory to D.O.B. on Aadhar card of revisionist/accused - 01.01.2004. All the series of contradictions and fabrications, raises a serious question mark upon the characters of revisionist/accused as well his aunt, namely- Aarfa Khan.
-
He has further submitted that the ossification test report clearly established that the claim of juvenility was wrongly raised before the courts below.
-
After hearing the rival submissions, a look at Section 94(ii) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. A perusal of the aforesaid provisions and law shows that where the documents from school as per sub-clause (i) is available. There is no justification for directing the ossification test report. In the present case, the documents relating to the school record were not found to be reliable either by the Juvenile Justice Board or by the Children's Court. However, both the forums directed the ossification test of the revisionist, which is not in accordance with law. Keeping in view the provisions of sub-section (iii) of the Act aforesaid, the said direction cannot be sustained.
-
Under the totality of facts and circumstances, the judgment and order passed by the court below do not call for any interference. The trial of the revisionist is being conducted as an adult, and rightly so.
-
The revision lacks merit and is hereby dismissed.
(Siddharth,J.)
October 7, 2025
Rohit
