Allahabad High Court
Subhash 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:178089
Reserved On:- 23.09.2025
Delivered On:- 08.10.2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1178 of 2025
Subhash
.....Revisionist(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s)
:
Balbeer Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
G.A.
In Chamber
HON'BLE SIDDHARTH, J.
-
Heard Sri Balbeer Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist; learned A.G.A for the State-respondent no. 1 and perused the material on record.
-
Despite service of notice on opposite party no.2, no one has turned-up to oppose this revision.
-
The present criminal revision has been preferred against the impugned judgment and order dated 27.01.2025 passed in Juvenile Appeal No. 296 of 2024 in the matter of Subhash vs. State of U.P. & Anr. Passed by Children court (Additional District & Session Judge)/Spe. Judge (POCSO Act), Court No. 28, Agra as well as impugned order dated 10.10.2024 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Agra in Case Crime No. 37 of 2024, under section 302, 506 IPC, Police Station- Nibohara, Agra arising out from Case Crime No. 37 of 2024 (State Vs. XXX Juvenile) Under Section 302, 506 I.P.C., Police Station- Nibohara, Agra.
-
A claim was made by Juvenile Justice Board, Agra by mother of Juvenile- opposite party no. 2 claiming that the date of birth of her son is recorded as 01.01.2011 and her son is studying in Class-VIIth, mother of the opposite party no. 2 was examined as C.W.-1 before the Juvenile Justice Board.
-
The Head Master of Raj Public School proved that the date of birth of Juvenile- opposite party no. 2 is recorded as 01.01.2011 in his school in Class-Ist admission form date of birth was recorded, he was admitted in Class-Ist on 01.04.2017.
-
Relying upon the aforesaid evidence, the Juvenile Justice Board held that on the basis of date of birth of 01.01.2011 of Juvenile- opposite party no. 2, on the date of incident dated 28.05.2024 he was aged about 13 years, 4 months and 27 days.
-
An appeal of the order of Juvenile Justice Board, it was confirmed and appeal was dismissed.
-
Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the Board rejected the document of Gram Panchayat, Family Register, which proved year of birth of juvenile-opposite party no. 2 as 2006. Therefore, ossification test of the juvenile-opposite party no. 2 should have been directed.
-
Counsel for the State respondent no. 1 has opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the revisionist and submitted that the Juvenile Justice Board rejected the application of the revisionist, thereby, photocopy of the Parivar Register was filed and prayer was made for summoning the witness along with record of Panchayat to prove the same by the Juvenile Justice Board by the order dated 30.09.2024. The aforesaid order was not subjected to challenge by the revisionist before the Appellate Court.
-
After hearing the rival submissions and going through the material on record, this court finds that a Parivar Register is not generally considered conclusive proof of age under the J.J. Act, 2015. There is hierarchical procedure for age determination under Section-94 (2) of J.J. Act, 2015. As per sub clause(i) of the aforesaid Section, the Age Certificate from School or matriculation certificate or its equivalent is the most preferred evidence. If no school or matriculation certificate is available, the Board will consider a birth certificate issued by corporation, Municipal Authority or Panchayat as per sub-section (ii). Only if neither of the documents stated above are available, the Board will order medical age determination test. In the present case, the most preferred document from School were available and after due verification were found to be reliable, therefore, the Court refused to entertain the objection raised by the revisionist on the basis of Parivar Register which is not conclusive proof of age and the entries in Parivar Register are based on estimation and required corroboration from other evidence. It has required to be proved as per Section-35 of the Indian Evidence Act which is seldom done. In view of the above consideration, this court finds that the orders passed by the courts below are in accordance with law and call for no interference.
-
The criminal revision is accordingly, dismissed.
-
Let the lower court record be returned to the trial court within a week.
(Siddharth,J.)
October 8, 2025
Rohit
