Allahabad High Court
X-Juvenile vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 27 October, 2025
Author: Siddharth
Bench: Siddharth
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:187583
Reserved On:-24.09.2025 Delivered On:-27.10.2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 6568 of 2024
X-Juvenile
.....Revisionist(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s)
:
Chandra Kant Tripathi
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
G.A., Gaurav Singh, Nitin Raj Singh
In Chamber
HON'BLE SIDDHARTH, J.
1. Heard Sri Chandra Kant Tripathi, learned counsel for the revisionist; Sri Nitin Raj Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and perused the trial court record.
2. This criminal revision has been filed praying for setting aside the judgment and order dated 13.11.2024 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (Pocso) Court No.1, Hathras in Criminal Appeal No. 44 of 2024 (Shoiab @ Sohil Vs. State of U.P. & others) as well as order dated 07.09.2024 passed by learned Juvenile Justice Board, Hathras in case, State Vs Shoiab @ Sohil, arising out of case crime no. 107 of 2023, in under section 376D, 504, 354 I.P.C. and Section 3/4(2), 7/8 Pocso act, Police Station Kotwali Mursan, District Hathras.
3. An Application was filed by the father of revisionist before the Juvenile Justice Board, Hathras claiming that the date of birth of revisionist as per High School Certificate is 21.01.2006 and therefore on the date of incident dated 09.05.2023 he was aged 17 years, 3 months and 18 days and was juvenile.
4. The complainant/ opposite party no.2 filed the certified copy of the admission Register of Ram Sahai Upadhyaya Bal Mandir Vidhyalaya and stated that Ossification Test of the revisionist should be ordered.
5. The father of revisionist was examined before the Juvenile Justice Board, Hathras as I.W.-1. He stated that name of his son is Sohil and his nick name is Soib. His date of birth is 21.01.2006 and he passed High School Examination from Balaji Public School, Mathura. During cross examination he admitted that the revisionist was born at Home and was admitted in Class-L.K.G. in Balaji Public School from where his son passed High School. He stated that he got the date of birth of his son recorded in the School on the basis of his memory. He does not remembers the date of birth of his eldest daughter out of his 5 children.
6. I.W.-2, Deputy Head Master of Balaji Public School, proved that the revisionist was student of his School in 2020-2021 from where he passed his High School Examination and he proved his High School Certificate and original marks sheet of High School. He further proved that the date of birth of the opposite party no.2 recorded in S.R. Register as 21.01.2006. During cross examination, he admitted that the revisionist was admitted in his School in Class-3 on the basis of the Transfer Certificate, Birth Certificate and Affidavit of his father. Transfer Certificate was issued in favour of the revisionist on 22.10.2021. He stated that his School is fully private and he has not brought the Transfer Certificate issued by earlier School of revisionist or the affidavit given by his father at the time of admission in Class-3 in his School. There is no counter sign of any Gazetted Officer or any authority on the S.R. Register produced by him before the Board. The revisionist was earlier admitted on 12.04.2023 in S.P.S. Residency Senior Secondary School, Mursan and he was removed from the School on 22.04.2013 because of continuous absence. He was again admitted in Class-9 in his School on 09.07.2019.
7. I.W.-3 Head Master of S.P.S. Residency School proved that revisionist studied in his School from Class-1 to Class-8. He passed Class-5 in 2016 and he produced the S.R. Register upto Class-5th before the Board. He also produced the S.R. Register of the revisionist from Class-6 to Class-8. He stated that after passing Class-8th Transfer Certificate was issued to the revisionist on 30.03.2019. He admitted that the date of birth of 21.01.2006 was recorded in his School on the basis of information given by his father.
8. I.W.-4, Head Master of Ram Sahai Upadhyaya Bal Mandir, Mursan proved that the date of birth of revisionist recorded in S.R. Register of the School is 15.05.2006. Revisionist was admitted in his School on 02.07.2011 in Class-1. After passing Class-5th in 2016 transfer certificate was given to him. During cross examination, he admitted that S.R. Register of his School is not counter signed by any authority and further stated that revisionist never took transfer certificate from his School.
9. The Juvenile Justice Board turned down the claim of revisionist. The Appellate Court has upheld the order of Juvenile Justice Board and hence this revision before this Court.
10. The Juvenile Justice Board found that from the evidence on record that revisionist was admitted in different Schools at the same time. I.W.-1 claimed that the revisionist was admitted in L.K.G. in Balaji Public School and he passed High School from the same School. I.W.-2 stated that the revisionist was admitted in Balaji Public School on the basis of Transfer Certificate dated 12.04.2013 of class-3rd by S.P.S. Residency Senior Secondary School. He further stated that after being admitted in Class-3, he studied in his School upto Class-10th. I.W.-3, Principal of S.P.S. Residency Secondary School stated that revisionist was admitted in his School on 01.07.2021 and studied from Class-1 to Class-8. I.W.-4 also claimed that the revisionist studied in Ram Sahai Upadhyaya Bal Mandir from Class-1 and was admitted in his School on 02.07.2011, when I.W.-1, father of the revisionist claimed that he got the revisionist admitted in Balaji Public School, in L.K.G. and he passed the High School from the same School.
11. The Board disbelieved the claim set up before it and held that the date of birth recorded in the High School Certificate of the revisionist cannot be believed since the date of birth of the revisionist recorded in School record is not correct. Where the revisionist studied from L.K.G. to Class-8th was not clearly proved before the Board, nor there was any definite documentary evidence produced before the Board. The evidence produced were contradictory. The Apex Court in the case of Sanjeev Kumar Gupta Vs. State of U.P.&Another, (2019) 4 SCC (Cri.) 379 held that where the School record regarding the date of birth is not credible, the matriculation certificate cannot be given precedence.
12. In view of the above consideration, this court does not finds any illegality in the judgments and orders impugned in this revision.
13. Revision is accordingly dismissed.
(Siddharth,J.)
October 27, 2025
Abhishek
