Allahabad High Court
Pooja Upadhyay vs State Of U.P. And Another on 8 October, 2025
Author: Siddharth
Bench: Siddharth
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:178099
Reserved On:- 23.09.2025
Delivered On:- 08.10.2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3519 of 2024
Pooja Upadhyay
.....Revisionist(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s)
:
Indresh Kumar Singh, Mohit Behari Mathur, Diwan Saifullah Khan, Udai Prakash Deo Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
G.A., Sunil Kumar Singh, Umapati Lal
In Chamber
HON'BLE SIDDHARTH, J.
-
Heard Sri Mohit Behari Mathur, learned counsel for the revisionist; Sri Sunil Kumar Singh, learned counsel for respondent no. 2; learned A.G.A for State-respondent no.1 and perused the trial court record.
-
The present criminal revision has been preferred against the impugned judgment and order dated 02.11.2023 passed by Juvenile Court / Special Judge (POCSO Act)/ Additional District and Sessions Judge, Varanasi in Criminal Appeal No. 141 of 2023 ("P" vs. State of U.P. and Another), Case Crime No. 610 of 2017 under Sections- 323, 504, 354B, 352 IPC and Section 7/8 of POCSO Act, Police Station- Sigra, District- Varanasi, whereby the appellate court affirmed the order dated 09.12.2022 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Varanasi.
-
The claim of juvenility was raised by Opposite Party No. 2 before the Juvenile Justice Board, Varanasi. In support of the said claim, C.W.-1, the Clerk of Raj English School, was examined. He deposed that Opposite Party No. 2 was admitted to the said school on 24.07.2013 in Class IX. After passing Class X, he obtained his Transfer Certificate from the school. The witness further proved the date of birth of Opposite Party No. 2 as 26.08.2000, as recorded in the school records. It was further stated that the admission of Opposite Party No. 2 in Raj English School was made on the basis of the Transfer Certificate issued by W.H. Amits Memorial School. The witness also produced the original admission form of Opposite Party No. 2 along with the scholar register.
-
C.W.-2, Head Master of Maharaja Public School proved that the opposite party no.2 was admitted in his school on 01.07.2004 in Class- II and after passing Class- II took transfer certificate on 18.04.2006. He proved that his date of birth was mentioned in his School as 26.08.1999. C.W.-2 proved that the date of birth of opposite party recorded in Nagar Nigam, Varanasi was 26.08.1998. He produced the birth-death register before the Court. In the Primary School, the date of birth of the opposite party no. 2 was mentioned as 26.08.1999. By the order dated 10.10.2022 the Board found that there are discrepancies in the dates of birth of opposite party no. 2 in different schools and the Ngar Nigam and therefore, relying upon the Judgment of coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Kalim Vs. State of U.P. and Another, passed in Criminal Revision No. 568 of 2022, the Board directed that ossification test of opposite party no. 2 should be conducted. By the order dated 09.12.2022, the Board found that as per ossification test before dated 21.10.2022, the age of opposite party no. 2 is about 19-21 years, therefore, on the date of incident dated 10.09.2017, he was aged about 13 years, 4 months, and 19 days.
-
The order dated 09.12.2022 of the Board was subjected to challenge before the Appellate Court, which has dismissed the appeal by the order dated 02.11.2023 and hence this revision.
-
Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the courts below have not considered the provisions of Section- 94(2) of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children ) Act, 2015 which provides that where the School Certificate or Matriculation / High School Certificate is available it shall be given first preference. Second Preference shall be given to the Birth Certificate issued by Corporation, Municipal Authority or Panchayat and only in the absence of the aforesaid documents/certificates, the ossification test of the offender shall be directed. He had submitted that in the presence case, the documents of the first preferential category issued by the School were produced which proved the date of birth of opposite party no. 2 as 26.08.1998 and in the High School Certificate as 26.08.1999. The date of birth recorded in Nagar Nigam Varanasi was 26.08.2000, therefore, the documents of School and also in the Nagar Nigam had 3 different dates of birth of the revisionist. The direction of the Juvenile Justice Board to get the ossification test Report of the opposite party no. 2 was not required to have been passed, keeping in view the mandate of Section- 94(2)(iii).
-
Counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has supported the judgments and orders passed by the Courts below.
-
After considering the rival submissions, this Court finds that both the Courts below have failed to take into consideration the provisions of Section 94(2) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. The judgment of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Kalim (supra) also does not take into account the provisions of Section 94(2) of the said Act. It considers only case laws relating to the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000 and the Juvenile Justice Rules, 2007. The finding of the Appellate Court that in some other case Opposite Party No. 2 was held to be a juvenile and that the said order was not rebutted by the revisionist, is not a correct proposition of law. The evidence or findings recorded in any other case are not relevant for deciding a subsequent case and can only be used for the limited purpose of confronting a witness during trial.
-
Upon overall consideration the judgments and orders passed by the Courts below and the provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, this Court finds that the impugned judgments and orders are not in accordance with law and are hereby set aside.
-
The criminal revision is accordingly allowed.
-
Let the lower court record be returned within a week.
(Siddharth,J.)
October 8, 2025
Rohit
