Allahabad High Court
X Juvenile 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:177408
Reserved On:- 16.09.2025
Delivered On:- 07.10.2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3758 of 2025
X Juvenile
.....Revisionist(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s)
:
Alok Kumar Rai
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
G.A.
In Chamber
HON'BLE SIDDHARTH, J.
-
Despite service of notice on informant, no one has turned up to oppose this revision.
-
Heard Sri Alok Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the revisionist; learned A.G.A for State and perused the photocopy of the trial court record.
-
The present criminal revision has been preferred against 21.05.2025 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/ Special Judge, POCSO Act, 1st Gorakhpur in Criminal Appeal no. 200/2024 (Juvenile Vs. State of U.P. and another) as well as the order dated 03.12.2024 passed by Principal Magistrate, (Juvenile Justice Board), Gorakhpur (State Vs. Mahendra Nishad), in case crime no. 699/2020, under Section 302 I.P.C. and 3(2)5 SC/ST Act, Police Station Gola, District Gorakhpur.
-
The Juvenile Justice Board, Gorakhpur, earlier decided the issue of juvenility of revisionist by the order dated 08.01.2024, which was set aside by the Appellate court and the matter was remanded for fresh decision.
-
Before the Juvenile Justice Board, the guardian of the revisionist stated that revisionist studied in class- 5th in Dev Guru Primary School, but the Principal denied that the revisionist ever studied in his school. The complainant of the case filed the certificate issued by Panchayat Adhikari, Gram Panchayat, Harpur, proving his date of birth as 01.02.1998 and the Panchayat Adhikari proved the same as per his panchayat register before the Board. The family register was not accepted in evidence by the Board and, therefore, ossification test of the revisionist was directed wherein his age came as 14 years and 7 months, but on appeal before the Appellate court, the parivar register was held to be a public document as per section 94(2)(i) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. The Board found that first the claim of juvenility was based by the revisionist on the basis of school record which he could not prove. As per the kutumbh register maintained by the Panchayat at the time of incident, the revisionist was above 18 years of age and aged 22 years, 6 months and 6 days. Hence, the claim of the revisionist was turned down by the Board.
-
The Appellate Court arrived at the same finding and upheld the order dated 03.12.2024 of the Juvenile Justice Board and hence the revision.
-
Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that both the Courts below have erred in placing reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Om Prakash vs. State of Rajasthan, AIR 2012 Supreme Court 1608 wherein it has been held that in cases where the school record is not free from ambiguity, the medical evidence shall be given precedence over the school record. His second argument is based by the another judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Parag Bhati (Juvenile) Through Legal Guardian-Mother, Rajni Bhati vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, (2016) 12 Supreme Court Cases 744, wherein the Apex Court held that if there is any doubt or the contradictory stand is being taken by the accused, which raises doubt about credence of date of birth of accused then the Children's Court or the Juvenile Justice Board can seek the medical report regarding the age of accused for determination of his age.
-
This court finds that in the present case, the revisionist first of all laid his claim before the Juvenile Justice Board on the basis of his studies in class-5th in Dev Guru Primary School but the Principal of the school denied that he ever studied in his school. The complainant side produced the certificate issued by the Panchayat Adhikari, Gram Panchayat, Harpur, proving that the date of birth recorded in Panchayat register is 01.02.1998. Therefore, on the date of incident dated 07.08.2020, he was found to be aged about 22 years. The revisionist did not produced any evidence in rebuttal but the Board directed his ossification test wherein his age was found to be 14 years, 7 months and 13 days.
-
As per Section 94(2) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 there are following requirements quoted hereinbelow:-
"94(2)(i) ? the date of birth certificate from the school, or the matriculation or equivalent certificate from the concerned examination Board, if available; and in the absence thereof."
(ii) the birth certificate given by a corporation or a municipal authority or a panchayat;
(iii) and only in the absence of (i) and (ii) above, age shall be determined by an ossification test or any other latest medical age determination test conducted on the orders of the Committed or the Board."
-
In this case, the claim of revisionist based on Section 94(2)(i) of the Act was not found to be proved. The documents as per sub-Section (ii) were produced by the complainant side in rebuttal which were duly proved before the Board and were not rebutted by the revisionist's side. Therefore, the requirement of conducting ossification test as per sub-Section (iii) was not there.
-
The Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of Parag Bhati (supra), has held in paragraph 35 that the benefit of the benevolent provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 will not apply to the offenders who take benefit of the Act only to dodge or dupe the arms of law after committing the well-planned crime in the nature of grave or serious offence. In the present case, revisionist has been implicated for committing the offence of murder of a person belonging to scheduled caste.
-
This Court does not find any illegality or infirmity in the orders passed by the Courts below. The same are hereby affirmed.
-
The revision, being devoid of merits, is hereby dismissed.
(Siddharth,J.)
October 7, 2025
Rohit
