Gufran vs State Of U.P. And Another
2025 Latest Caselaw 11215 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Gufran 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:177371
 

 
  
 
 Reserved On:- 15.09.2025    
 
  Delivered On:- 07.10.2025
 
 
 
   
 
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD 
 
CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 4880 of 2024   
 
   Gufran    
 
  .....Revisionist(s)   
 
 Versus  
 
   State of U.P. and Another    
 
  .....Opposite Party(s)       
 
   
 
  
 
Counsel for Revisionist(s)   
 
:   
 
Sundeep Shukla   
 
  
 
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)   
 
:   
 
G.A., Vinod Singh   
 
     
 
 In Chamber
 
   
 
 HON'BLE SIDDHARTH, J.      

-

Despite service of notice, no one responds on behalf of respondent no. 2 to oppose this revision even in the revised list.

-

Heard Sri Sandeep Shukla, learned counsel for revisionist; learned A.G.A for State-respondents and perused the material taken on record.

-

The present criminal revision has been preferred to set aside the impugned order dated 09.03.2023 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Meerut in Misc. Case No. 285 of 2022 (Minor 'X' Son of Khursheed vs. State of U.P.), arising out of Case Crime No. 33 of 2022, under Section- 302 IPC, 1860, Police Station- Incholi, District- Meerut and impugned order dated 23.08.2023 passed by Juvenile Court, Room No. 3, Meerut in Criminal Appeal No. 55 of 2023 (Gufran vs. State of U.P and another).

-

An application was made by the father of the respondent no. 2 before Juvenile Justice Act, Meerut for getting the respondent no. 2 declared as juvenile on the ground that his date of birth is 26.01.2006 and on the date of incident dated 01.02.2022, he was juvenile aged about 16 years, 6 months and 6 days.

-

A.W.-1, the father of respondent no. 2, Khursheed, stated before the Court that respondent no. 2 is his fourth child and has studied from class- 1st to 5th in Mamta Shishu Niketan, Incholi, Meerut, thereafter, he left studies. The respondent no. 2 was born at home and his birth was not registered before any local body. He mentioned the date of birth of respondent no. 2 at the time of admission orally in the school. He stated that the opposite party no. 2 was admitted in school on 15.07.2011. He filed the school leaving certificate of class- 5th of respondent no. 2 wherein neither the book number nor the serial number was mentioned.

-

A.W.-2, Mansoor Ali, Teacher of Mamta Shishu Niketan School, proved that respondent no. 2 was admitted in class-1st in his school on 15.07.2011 and passed class-5th on 20.05.2016. In the S.R register, his date of birth is mentioned as 26.01.2006. His school leaving certificate of class-5th is on record.

-

During the cross-examination, he admitted that respondent no. 2 was admitted in class-1st and at that time he was aged 3 years. His date of birth was mentioned as informed by his guardian. The school admission form of respondent no. 2 has got destroyed. He is unable to produce the record of admission. However, he proved that the transfer certificate dated 08.10.2022 was issued in favour of the mother of respondent no. 2.

-

A.W.-3, Shekhar Kumar, Assistant Teacher of the same school, appeared before the Board along with school record of respondent no. 2 and proved that he studied from class-1st to 5th as stated by A.W.-2. In cross-examination, he admitted that in the S.R register, none of the pages have been countersigned by B.S.A nor there is any signature of Principal. He also stated that attendance register of the revisionist has got destroyed.

-

The Juvenile Justice Board on the basis of evidence led before it determined the age of the respondent no. 2 as 16 years and 5 days by the order dated 09.03.2023. An Appeal No. 55 of 2023 was preferred by the revisionist- complainant before the Children's Court which has affirmed the order of Juvenile Justice Board dated 09.03.2023 and hence this revision.

-

Counsel for the revisionist has submitted that both the courts below have committed patent illegality in the determination of the age of respondent no. 2. It has been submitted that relying only on the school leaving certificate, the age of respondent no. 2 was determined by both the courts below when as per Section 94(2)(i) of the Act, the requirement was certificate of school or matriculation certificate or its equivalent.

-

Learned A.G.A. appearing for respondent no. 1 has submitted that the judgments passed by the Courts below appear to be justified.

-

Learned counsel for the revisionist has placed reliance upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Manoj @ Monu @ Vishal Chaudhary vs. State of Haryana and Another, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 170 ; P. Yuvaprakash vs. State Rep. by Inspector of Police, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 538 ; and Suresh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1579 .

-

This court after hearing the rival submissions and going through the record of courts below finds that the only document which was filed in support of claim of juvenility before the Juvenile Justice Board was the school leaving certificate of class-5th of respondent no. 2. The school leaving certificate was not supported by any underlying document. The attendance register of respondent no. 2 was stated to have been destroyed. The S.R register of school was not countersigned by B.S.A nor there was signature of Principal on any page of register yet the Juvenile Justice Board on the solitary evidence of school leaving certificate of class-5th determined the age of respondent no. 2 as 16 years and 5 months.

-

In paragraph 38 of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Manoj @ Monu @ Vishal Chaudhary (Supra) it has deprecated the declaration of juvenility of accused on the basis of school leaving certificate only are held as follows :-

"38. The appellant sought to rely upon juvenility only on the basis of school leaving record in his application filed under Section 7A of the 2000 Act. Such school record is not reliable and seems to be procured only to support the plea of juvenility. The appellant has not referred to date of birth certificate in his application as it was obtained subsequently. Needless to say, the plea of juvenility has to be raised in a bonafide and truthful manner. If the reliance is on a document to seek juvenility which is not reliable or dubious in nature, the appellant cannot be treated to be juvenile keeping in view that the Act is a beneficial legislation. As also held in Babloo Pasi, the provisions of the statute are to be interpreted liberally but the benefit cannot be granted to the appellant who has approached the Court with untruthful statement."

-

In paragraph 19 of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of P. Yuvaprakash (Supra) has held that the transfer certificate and extract of admission register do not fall within the documents mandated under Section 94(2)(i) of the Act as follows:-

"19. It is clear from the above narrative that none of the documents produced during the trial answered the description of "the date of birth certificate from the school" or the matriculation or equivalent certificate" from the concerned examination board or certificate by a corporation, municipal authority or a Panchayat. In these circumstances, it was incumbent for the prosecution to prove through acceptable medical tests/examination that the victim's age was below 18 years as per Section 94(2)(iii) of the JJ Act. PW-9, Dr. Thenmozhi, Chief Civil Doctor and Radiologist at the General Hospital at Vellore, produced the X-ray reports and deposed that in terms of the examination of M, a certificate was issued stating "that the age of the said girl would be more than 18 years and less than 20 years". In the cross-examination, she admitted that M's age could be taken as 19 years. However, the High Court rejected this evidence, saying that "when the precise date of birth is available from out of the school records, the approximate age estimated by the medical expert cannot be the determining factor". This finding is, in this court's considered view, incorrect and erroneous. As held earlier, the documents produced, i.e., a transfer certificate and extracts of the admission register, are not what Section 94 (2) (i) mandates; nor are they in accord with Section 94 (2) (ii) because DW-1 clearly deposed that there were no records relating to the birth of the victim, M. In these circumstances, the only piece of evidence, accorded with Section 94 of the JJ Act was the medical ossification test, based on several X-Rays of the victim, and on the basis of which PW-9 made her statement. She explained the details regarding examination of the victim's bones, stage of their development and opined that she was between 1&-20 years; in cross-examination she said that the age might be 19 years. Given all these circumstances, this court is of the opinion that the result of the ossification or bone test was the most authentic evidence, corroborated by the examining doctor, PW-9."

-

This Court further finds that the date of birth recorded in the school was not based on any documentary evidence. A.W.-1 has stated that respondent no. 2 was admitted in Class I when he was only 3 years of age, and the date of birth was recorded on the basis of the information furnished by him orally. Such conduct on the part of the parents has been deprecated by the Apex Court in paragraph 24 of the judgment in the case of Suresh (supra), wherein it has been held as follows:

"24. Rule 12(3)(a) of the Rules lays down the sequential list of certificates to be examined and the order thereof. As no 'matriculation or equivalent certificates' were available under Rule 12(3) (a)(ii) of the Rules, thus under Rule 12(3)(a)(ii) of the Rules, 'date of birth certificate from the school (other than a play school) first attended' was attracted and certificate issued by Kaushik Modern Public School, Khurgaon was taken as conclusive proof of date of birth. However, the deposition of the School's Headmaster, especially to the effect that the birth-date was noted as per an oral representation by Respondent No. 2's father, makes the said certificate unreliable. Moving on, Rule 12(3) (a)(iii) and Rule 12(3) (b) of the Rules, respectively, provide for 'birth certificate given by a corporation or a municipal authority or a panchayat' and 'only in the absence of either (i), (ii) or (iii) of clause (a) above, the medical opinion will be sought from a duly constituted Medical Board, which will declare the age of the juvenile or child."

-

On overall consideration of the evidence on record, this court finds that both the judgments and orders passed by both the courts below are illegal and against the mandate of Section 94(2)(i) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. They are accordingly, set aside.

-

The respondent no. 2 is held to be adult and shall be tried as such.

-

The revision stands allowed.

-

Let the lower court record be returned to the trial court within period of one week.

(Siddharth,J.)

October 7, 2025

Rohit