Allahabad High Court
Savitri Devi Alias Savita vs State Of U.P. And Another on 29 October, 2025
Author: Siddharth
Bench: Siddharth
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:189087
Reserved On:26.09.2025. Delivered On: 29.10.2025.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3336 of 2025
Savitri Devi Alias Savita
.....Revisionist(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s)
:
Prem Narayan Rai
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
Ved Prakash Dwivedi, G.A.
In Chamber
HON'BLE SIDDHARTH, J.
1. Heard Sri Prem Narayan Rai, learned counsel for the revisionist; learned AGA for State and perused the trial court record.
2. This Criminal Revision has been preferred for setting aside the judgment and order dated 19.10.2020 and 22.09.2021 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Varanasi, in Case No. 2673/2015 (Misc. Case No. 203/2018)(State Vs. Akash Singh), under sctions 147, 323, 504 and 506 of IPC, Police Station- Rohaniya, District- Varanasi, as well as impugned order dated 09.04.20205 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge/F.T.C.,-1 Varanasi in Criminal Appeal No. 105/2021 (Savitri Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another).
3. By the order dated 19.10.2020, the Juvenile Justice Board, Varanasi declared the opposite party no.2,Juvenile aged about 17 years, 6 months and 26 days on the date of incident dated 11.09.2015, on the basis of the date of birth of 15.02.1998 recorded in the High School Certificate.
4. The revisionist is aggrieved by the aforesaid order on the ground that she was not given any opportunity of hearing by the Board before passing the order dated 19.10.2020. After coming to know the aforesaid order, she filed an application praying for recall of the order dated 19.10.2020 and permitting her to file evidence to show that the date of birth of the opposite party no.2 mentioned in the High School Certificate was incorrect.
5. The aforesaid recall application was rejected by the Board vide its order dated 22.09.2021.
6. The revisionist preferred an Appeal before the Appellate Court against the order dated.22.09.2021 passed by the Board and filed documentary evidence before the Appellate Court ,to prove that the claim of the opposite party no.2 was not correct, alongwith the Appeal. She brought on record the documentary evidence to prove that the date of birth of the opposite party no.2 in underlying documents of the High School Certificate is different and therefore the reliance on the High School Certificate by the Board for declaring the opposite party no.2 as juvenile is incorrect.
7. The Appellate Court has dismissed the appeal on the ground that the order dated 19.10.2020 passed by the Board has attained finality and it was not challenged. The order dated 22.09.2021 of the Board is interlocutory order and no appeal lies against the same.
8. After hearing the rival contentions this court finds that Section 101 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 provides that every order passed by the Board or the Committee is appealable before the Sessions Court. Therefore, the findings of the appellate court in the order dated 09.04.2025 is not correct. This court further finds that the Board passed the order dated 19.10.2020 prior to service of notice on the revisionist. From the order sheet of the Board, it is clear that D.P.O. report sought by the Board was not available on record and order was passed on 10.12.2020/24.12.2020 for getting the same, when the order dated 19.10.2020, declaring the opposite party no.2 as juvenile was already passed. Alongwith the appeal, the revisionist brought on record the evidence from the Hospital, the earlier school where the opposite party no.2 studied that his date of birth was recorded in the Birth Certificate as 27.09.1976. The appellate court also directed the Hospital concerned to produce the record of the date of birth of the opposite party no.2, but before it could reach the appellate court, the appeal was decided on the ground that the order dated 22.09.2021, rejecting recall application of the revisionist, is interlocutory order and not appealable.
9. In view of the above conduct of the Board and Appellate Court, the judgments and orders passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Varanasi dated 19.10.2020 and 22.09.2021 and order dated 09.04.2025 passed by Additional District Judge/ Fast Track Court-I,Varanasi impugned in this revision are hereby set aside.
10. The Juvenile Justice Board, Varanasi is directed to afford opportunity of hearing to ;the parties and also opportunity of leading evidence regarding the issue of age determination of the opposite party no.2 and pass fresh order in accordance with law within period of 3 months from the date of production of certified copy of this order by either of the parties before the Board.
11. Revision is allowed.
12. The Registrar (Compliance) of this court shall also communicate this order to the Juvenile Justice Board, Varanasi within a period of 1 week.
(Siddharth,J.)
October 29, 2025
Abhishek
