Allahabad High Court
Juvenile X Thru. His Natural Guardian vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home And 3 ... on 24 September, 2025
Author: Saurabh Lavania
Bench: Saurabh Lavania
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
CRIMINAL REVISION DEFECTIVE No.489 of 2025
Juvenile X Thru. His Natural Guardian
..Revisionist(s)
Versus
State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home And 3 Others
..Respondents(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s)
:
Dilip Kumar Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
G.A.
Court No. -11
HONBLE SAURABH LAVANIA, J.
C.M.A. No.1 of 2025 (Application for Condonation of Delay)
1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
2. Considering the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of application, under consideration, and the fact that the same has not been opposed, this Court is of the view that the application is liable to be allowed.
3. Accordingly, the application is allowed. The delay in filing the revision is condoned.
Order on Revision
4. The present criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist with the following main relief(s):-
WHEREFORE, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the revision of the revisionist set aside the judgment & order dated 24.04.2025 passed Special Judge POCSO Act (Exclusive) First / Judge, Juvenile Court, Raibareli, in Criminal Appeal No 60/2023 by means of which the appeal of the Revisionist was dismissed and confirmed the judgment and order dated 07.07.2022 passed by Learned Principal Magistrate/Juvenile Justice Board Raibarelli in Crime No 377/2021, under section 376AB, I.P.C & section 5N/6 of POCSO Act police station Deeh, District Raibarelli by allowing the revision by making the assessment of age of the child as 14 years 1 month 13 days by recoding the date of birth of educational record of Swaraj Shiksha Mandir, Higher Secondary School, Raibarelli as 20.08.2007.
5. Vide order dated 07.07.2022, the Principal Magistrate/Juvenile Justice Board, Raebareli (in short JJB) determined the age of the revisionist/juvenile and according to the same at the time of alleged commission of offence, i.e. on 03.10.2021 the revisionist/juvenile was 16 years, 3 months and 20 days.
6. The record indicates that the conclusion drawn by JJB with regard to age of the revisionist/juvenile i.e. 16 years, 3 months and 20 days, is based upon the medical evidence. The reason for this is that the JJB found discrepancy in the documentary evidence with regard to the date of birth of the revisionist/juvenile. According to the documentary evidence, i.e. Paper No.17Ka/5, copy of Scholar Certificate and T.C. Form, duly proved by Shri Sundarlal, Principal of Swaraj Shishu Mandir, Lodhwari, District- Raebareli indicates that the revisionist/juvenile was born on 20.08.2007. The document/evidence, i.e. Paper No.17Kha/26, copy of Scholar Register of Primary School, Lodhwari Development Area, Raebareli, duly proved by Shri Piyush Baranwal, Principal of said school, in which the name of the revisionist is at serial number 4027, indicates that the revisionist/juvenile was born on 29.09.2003.
7. The order dated 07.07.2022 reads as under:
"पत्रावली पेश हुई। पुकार पर कथित बाल अपचारी के संरक्षक पिता मय विद्वान अधिवक्ता उपस्थित है।
कथित बाल अपचारी X के संरक्षक पिता xxxx की ओर से किशोर घोषित किये जाने के बिन्दु पर सुना एंव पत्रावली पर उपलब्ध प्रपत्रों का सम्यक परिशीलन किया।
कथित बाल अपचारी X के संरक्षक पिता xxxx की ओर से प्रार्थना पत्र मय शपथपत्र किशोर अपचारी को अवयस्क घोषित किये जाने हेतु दिनाँक 06.12.2021 को इस आशय से दिया गया है कि कथित बाल अपचारी अवयस्क था। मेडिकल के समय उसकी उम्र करीब 17 वर्ष थी। कथित बाल अपचारी पढ़ा लिखा है, बावजूद कथित बाल अपचारी को मेडिकल के आधार पर किशोर घोषित किये जाने की आवश्यकता है। तदोपरान्त मेडिकल के द्वारा आयु निर्धारण करने की प्रक्रिया अमल में लायी गयी जबकि कथित बालक के पास शैक्षिक प्रमाण पत्र थे। उसकी मेडिकल ज़रिये आयु निर्धारण करने हेतु दिनाँक 17.06.2022 को आदेश पारित हुआ।
बोर्ड द्वारा कथित बाल अपचारी की चिकित्सकीय आयु के संबंध में मुख्य चिकित्साधिकारी लखनऊ द्वारा प्रेषित चिकित्सीय आख्या का अवलोकन किया गया। जिसके अनुसार बाल अपचारी की उम्र दिनांक 22.06.2022 को 17 वर्ष है क्योंकि प्रस्तुत प्रकरण की घटना दिनाँक 03.10.2021 है और बाल अपचारी का मेडिकल घटना के 09 माह 17 दिन बाद हुआ, इस लिए मेडिकल को दृष्टिगत रखते हुए घटना दिनाँक को बाल अपचारी की आयु 16 वर्ष 03 माह 20 दिन है। इस प्रकार वह घटना दिनाँक को अवयस्क था और तदनुसार बाल अपचारी को अवयस्क घोषित किया जाता है।
आदेश
बाल अपचारी X के संरक्षक पिता XXXX की ओर से प्रस्तुत प्रार्थना पत्र दिनांकित 06. 12.2021 स्वीकार किया जाता है। बाल अपचारी को उक्त घटना की तिथि पर अव्यस्क घोषित किया जाता है।"
8. Being aggrieved, the revisionist filed the appeal, registered as Appeal No.60 of 2023 (Supra). This appeal has been decided vide impugned order dated 24.04.2025. By this order, the Juvenile Court/Special Judge POCSO Act (Exclusive) Ist, Raebareli (in short Appellate Court) confirmed the order dated 07.07.2022 passed by JJB. The relevant portion of the order dated 24.04.2025 reads as under:
"5-किशोर न्याय बोर्ड रायबरेली से मूल पत्रावली आहूत होकर इस अपील पत्रावली के साथ संलग्न है। मेरे द्वारा उपरोक्त पत्रावली का सम्यक परिशीलन किया गया। मूल पत्रावली पर बाल अपचारी के द्वारा दो भिन्न-भिन्न विद्यालय में पढ़े जाने से सम्बन्धित दस्तावेज कागज संख्या 17 क/5 तथा कागज संख्या 17 ख/26 हैं। कागज संख्या 17 ख/5 स्वराज शिशु मन्दिर लोधवारी द्वारा जारी बाल अपचारी के नाम से जारी स्कालर रजिस्टर तथा टी०सी० फार्म" की प्रति है जो उक्त विद्यालय के प्रधानाचार्य द्वारा जारी किया गया है और जिसे प्रधानाचार्य सुन्दरलाल द्वारा न्यायालय में उपस्थित होकर साबित किया गया है। उपरोक्त स्कालर रजिस्टर तथा टी०सी० फार्म कागज संख्या 17 ख/5 पर बाल अपचारी की जन्मतिथि 20.08.2007 लिखी गयी है। बाल अपचारी के शिक्षा के सम्बन्ध में पत्रावली पर दूसरा दस्तावेज कागज संख्या 17 ख/26 प्राथमिक विद्यालय लोधवारी विकास क्षेत्र राही रायबरेली द्वारा जारी प्रवेश रजिस्टर की प्रति है जिसे उक्त विद्यालय के प्रधानाचार्य पीयुष बरनवाल द्वारा न्यायालय में उपस्थित होकर साबित किया गया है। प्राथमिक विद्यालय लोधवारी द्वारा जारी प्रपत्र में बाल अपचारी का नाम क्रमांक 4027 पर अंकित है जिसमें उसकी जन्मतिथि 29.09.2003 अंकित की गयी है। इस प्रकार किशोर न्याय बोर्ड की पत्रावली पर बाल अपचारी द्वारा दो भिन्न-भिन्न विद्यालयों में शिक्षा ग्रहण करने का दस्तावेज संलग्न है जिन्हे सम्बन्धित विद्यालय के प्रधानाचार्य द्वारा जारी करके न्यायालय में साबित भी किया गया है। उपरोक्त दोनों दस्तावेजों में बाल अपचारी की जन्मतिथि भिन्न-भिन्न लिखी गयी है।
पत्रावली पर बाल अपचारी के उम्र जांच से सम्बन्धित चिकित्सीय प्रपत्र संलग्न है। बाल अपचारी की उम्र निर्धारण से सम्बन्धित चिकित्सीय आख्या दिनांक 17.06.2022 को तैयार की गयी है जिसमें रेडियोंलाजी के आधार पर उसकी उम्र 17 वर्ष उल्लिखित है।
पत्रावली के अवलोकन से यह पाया गया कि घटना दिनांक 03.10.2021 को कारित हुई है। चिकित्सीय आख्या के अनुसार बाल अपचारी की उम्र दिनांक 22.06.2022 को 17 वर्ष थी। इस प्रकार घटना की तिथि पर उसकी उम्र 16 वर्ष 3 माह 11 दिन पायी जाती है।
किशोर न्याय बोर्ड द्वारा पारित आदेश दिनांकित 07.07.2022 में चिकित्सीय आख्या के आधार पर बाल अपचारी की उम्र का निर्धारण किया गया है और घटना की तिथि दिनांक 03.10.2021 को बाल अपचारी की चिकित्सीय उम्र के आधार पर उम्र 16 वर्ष 3 माह 20 दिन पायी गयी है।
चूंकि किशोर न्याय बोर्ड के समक्ष बाल अपचारी की शिक्षा दो विद्यालय में लेने का दस्तावेज प्रस्तुत कर उसे सम्बन्धित प्रधानाचार्य द्वारा साबित कराया गया था किन्तु दोनों शैक्षणिक दस्तावेजों में बाल अपचारी की दो भिन्न-भिन्न जन्मतिथि लिखी गयी थी जिनमें कई वर्षों का अन्तर है जिसके कारण उनपर विश्वास न करके किशोर न्याय बोर्ड द्वारा बाल अपचारी की चिकित्सीय पद्यति से उम्र ज्ञात करके उसपर विश्वास किया गया है जो मामले के तथ्यों एवं परिस्थितियों में उचित एवं विधि सम्मत प्रतीत होता है।
6. अतः मामले के तथ्यों एवं परिस्थियों में न्यायालय का यह मत है कि दो भिन्न-भिन्न शैक्षणिक दस्तावेजों में भिन्न-भिन्न जन्मतिथि लिखी होने के कारण उनपर विश्वास न करके किशोर न्याय बोर्ड द्वारा चिकित्सीय पद्यति से बाल अपचारी की उम्र ज्ञात करके बाल अपचारी के उम्र का निर्धारण किया गया है जो सही है। आलोच्य आदेश में कोई विधिक या तथ्यात्मक त्रुटि नहीं है। अतः मामले के तथ्यों एवं परिस्थितियों में अपील बलहीन पायी जाती है। तदनुसार अपील निरस्त किये जाने योग्य है।
आदेश
आपराधिक अपील संख्या 60/2023 निरस्त की जाती है। किशोर न्याय बोर्ड रायबरेली द्वारा मुकदमा अपराध संख्या 377/2021, अन्तर्गत धारा 376 (AB) भारतीय दण्ड संहिता व धारा 5N/6 पाक्सो एक्ट, थाना डीह, जिला रायबरेली में पारित प्रश्गत आदेश दिनांकित 07.07.2022 पुष्ट किया जाता है।
आदेश की प्रमाणित प्रति के साथ किशोर न्याय बोर्ड/ अवर न्यायालय की पत्रावली अविलम्ब किशोर न्याय बोर्ड, रायबरेली वापस भेजी जाए। प्रस्तुत अपील की पत्रावली नियमानुसार दाखिल दफ्तर हो।"
9. In the aforesaid background of the case, the instant revision has been filed.
10. For coming to the conclusion as to whether interference is required in the order dated 24.04.2025 passed by the Appellate Court, this court considered the following facts, as brought to the notice of this court by learned counsel for the parties from the record.
(i)With regard to an incident occurred on 03.10.2021, an FIR was lodged on the same day i.e. on 03.10.2021 at Police Station- Deeh, District - Raebareli.
(ii) The FIR, registered as Case Crime No. 0377 of 2021, was lodged after taking note of the allegations therein under Section- 376 A.B. of I.P.C. & Section 5-N and 6 of POCSO Act, 2012.
(iii) To avoid the rigors of provisions of the Act of 2015, according to which if an offence is committed by a minor aged between 16 to 18 years then in that eventuality he can be tried as an adult, an application was moved for determination of age of accused-juvenile.
(iv) The claim of juvenility is/was based upon the date of birth i.e. 20.08.2007 of the revisionist/juvenile indicated in the Scholar Register and T.C. Form of Swaraj Shishu Mandir, Lodhwari, District- Raebareli as also Scholar Register of Primary School, Lodhwari Development Area, Raebareli in which date of birth of revisionist/juvenile is mentioned as 29.09.2003.
(vi) To establish the correct age of the revisionist/juvenile the medical test was conducted according to which the age of the revisionist/juvenile was determined as 17 years. Considering the medical test, the age of the revisionist/juvenile, at the time of alleged incident, was determined as 16 years, 3 months and 20 days.
11. This Court also considered the following judgments.
A. The judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rajni v. State of U.P., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1183. Relevant portion of which reads as under :-
25. Section 94 deals with presumption and determination of age. Section 94 reads thus:
94. Presumption and determination of age.(1) Where, it is obvious to the Committee or the Board, based on the appearance of the person brought before it under any of the provisions of this Act (other than for the purpose of giving evidence) that the said person is a child, the Committee or the Board shall record such observation stating the age of the child as nearly as may be and proceed with the inquiry under Section 14 or Section 36, as the case may be, without waiting for further confirmation of the age.
(2) In case, the Committee or the Board has reasonable grounds for doubt regarding whether the person brought before it is a child or not, the Committee or the Board, as the case may be, shall undertake the process of age determination, by seeking evidence by obtaining
(i) the date of birth certificate from the school, or the matriculation or equivalent 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 Committee or the Board:
Provided such age determination test conducted on the order of the Committee or the Board shall be completed within fifteen days from the date of such order.
(3) The age recorded by the Committee or the Board to be the age of person so brought before it shall, for the purpose of this Act, be deemed to be the true age of that person.
25.1. Thus the process of age determination is provided in sub-section (2) of Section 94 which is identical to the procedure prescribed under sub-rule (3) of Rule 12 of the JJ Rules, 2007. Sub-section (2) of Section 94 says that to undertake the process of age determination, the child welfare committee or the JJB shall seek evidence in the following manner:
(i) the date of birth certificate from the school or the matriculation or equivalent certificate from the concerned Board, if available;
(ii) in the absence thereof, the birth certificate given by a corporation or a municipal authority or a panchayat;
(iii) in the absence of (i) and (ii), the age shall be determined by an ossification test or by any other latest medical age determination test conducted on the orders of the child welfare committee or the JJB.
26. Having noticed the relevant legal framework, let us examine as to how the case of respondent No. 2 vis--vis juvenility was dealt with by the JJB and thereafter by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge. As already noted above, JJB had held respondent No. 2 to be not a juvenile which decision was reversed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge and affirmed by the High Court.
27. At this stage, we need to mention that the date of the incident is 17.02.2021. On behalf of respondent No. 2, certificate from the DPS Higher Secondary School, Parvesh Vihar, Meerut was filed. Date of admission was mentioned as 04.04.2016. Date of birth of respondent No. 2 was mentioned as 08.09.2003. Respondent No. 2 had passed the high school examination in the year 2018 from the said DPS Higher Secondary School, Parvesh Vihar, Meerut. Thereafter, he was studying in CRK Inter College, Meerut. Therefore, on the date of the incident, respondent No. 2 was below 18 years of age. In the register of DPS Higher Secondary School and marksheet of high school examination, the date of birth of respondent No. 2 was mentioned as 08.09.2003. JJB in an earlier proceeding relating to respondent No. 2 i.e. Miscellaneous Case No. 9/2000 in respect of Crime Case No. 11/2000 under Section 307 IPC, Police Station Medical College, Meerut had accepted the date of birth of respondent No. 2 as 08.09.2003. It is seen that in the present proceeding JJB examined mother of respondent No. 2 who had filed the application to declare her son, respondent No. 2, as juvenile. JJB observed that she did not remember in which school respondent No. 2 had studied from Class 1 to Class 7 before taking admission in DPS Higher Secondary School in Class 8. In her statement, Principal of DPS Higher Secondary School, Smt. Manju Mala Sharma stated that she was working in the same school since the year 1996 and asserted that respondent No. 2 had obtained his education from her school from Class 4 to High School but original record of Class 4 to Class 8 were not available as those were destroyed due to fire.
27.1. JJB also rejected the birth certificate of Meerut Municipal Corporation which showed the date of birth of respondent No. 2 as 08.09.2003 on the ground that it was issued on 08.06.2020.
27.2. As regards the earlier decision of JJB, it was observed that the present informant was not a party therein. Therefore, she had no opportunity to tender evidence or to rebut the claim of juvenility of respondent No. 2. Thus the previous decision of JJB was not applicable.
27.3. It was in that context, JJB passed an order for medical examination of respondent No. 2. In compliance to such order, the Medical Board submitted report on 27.07.2021 assessing the age of respondent No. 2 as about 21 years.
27.4. JJB accepted the medical report dated 27.07.2021 wherein age of respondent No. 2 was assessed as about 21 years. On that basis, respondent No. 2 was found to be more than 18 years of age on the date of the incident. Thus respondent No. 2 was held to be an adult as on 17.02.2021 i.e. the date of the incident.
28. Admittedly, the line of reasoning adopted by the JJB is totally fallacious. When the concerned birth certificate from the school was available as well as birth certificate issued by the Meerut Municipal Corporation, JJB could not have opted for ossification test. The statute is very clear that only in the absence of the certificates under clause (i) and clause (ii) of subsection (2) of Section 94 can the JJB order for an ossification test or any other medical test to determine the age of the juvenile. The certificate of the Meerut Municipal Corporation was issued on 08.06.2020 before the date of the incident. In any event, it was not open to the JJB to go behind the available school certificate or the birth certificate of the Corporation and record evidence to examine the correctness or otherwise of such certificate. This is not the mandate of Section 94(2) of the JJ Act, 2015. Therefore, the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge was justified in reversing such decision of the JJB. Learned Additional District and Sessions Judge gave preference to the date of birth of respondent No. 2 mentioned in the high school certificate wherein his date of birth was mentioned as 08.09.2003. Thus, respondent No. 2 was 17 years 3 months 10 days on the date of the incident. Accordingly, he was declared as a juvenile delinquent.
29. But there is a more fundamental issue here. In an earlier proceeding being Miscellaneous Case No. 9/2000 arising out of Crime Case No. 11/2000 registered under Section 307 IPC in the Medical College Police Station, Meerut, JJB had accepted the date of birth of respondent No. 2 as 08.09.2003. It is not open to the JJB to say in subsequent proceeding that date of birth of respondent No. 2 is not 08.09.2003 and thereafter proceed to have the opinion of the medical board. If this is permitted, it will amount to reviewing its earlier order. The JJ Act, 2015 confers no such power of review upon the JJB. It is trite law that power of review is either statutorily conferred or by necessary implication. No such power of JJB is traceable under the JJ Act, 2015.
30. High Court accepted the high school certificate of respondent No. 2 and held that there is no scope to interfere with the order of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge.
31. In Rishipal Singh Solanki v. State of U.P.,(2022) 8 SCC 602, this Court after considering a catena of previous decisions of this Court held as follows:
33. * * * * * *
33.1. A claim of juvenility may be raised at any stage of a criminal proceeding, even after a final disposal of the case. A delay in raising the claim of juvenility cannot be a ground for rejection of such claim. It can also be raised for the first time before this Court.
33.2. An application claiming juvenility could be made either before the court or the JJ Board.
33.2.1. When the issue of juvenility arises before a court, it would be under sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 9 of the JJ Act, 2015 but when a person is brought before a committee or JJ Board, Section 94 of the JJ Act, 2015 applies.
33.2.2. If an application is filed before the court claiming juvenility, the provision of sub-section (2) of Section 94 of the JJ Act, 2015 would have to be applied or read along with sub-section (2) of Section 9 so as to seek evidence for the purpose of recording a finding stating the age of the person as nearly as may be.
33.2.3. When an application claiming juvenility is made under Section 94 of the JJ Act, 2015 before the JJ Board when the matter regarding the alleged commission of offence is pending before a court, then the procedure contemplated under Section 94 of the JJ Act, 2015 would apply. Under the said provision if the JJ Board has reasonable grounds for doubt regarding whether the person brought before it is a child or not, the Board shall undertake the process of age determination by seeking evidence and the age recorded by the JJ Board to be the age of the person so brought before it shall, for the purpose of the JJ Act, 2015, be deemed to be true age of that person. Hence the degree of proof required in such a proceeding before the JJ Board, when an application is filed seeking a claim of juvenility when the trial is before the criminal court concerned, is higher than when an inquiry is made by a court before which the case regarding the commission of the offence is pending (vide Section 9 of the JJ Act, 2015).
33.3. That when a claim for juvenility is raised, the burden is on the person raising the claim to satisfy the court to discharge the initial burden. However, the documents mentioned in Rules 12(3)(a)(i), (ii) and (iii) of the JJ Rules, 2007 made under the JJ Act, 2000 or sub-section (2) of Section 94 of the JJ Act, 2015, shall be sufficient for prima facie satisfaction of the court. On the basis of the aforesaid documents a presumption of juvenility may be raised.
33.4. The said presumption is however not conclusive proof of the age of juvenility and the same may be rebutted by contra evidence let in by the opposite side.
33.5. That the procedure of an inquiry by a court is not the same thing as declaring the age of the person as a juvenile sought before the JJ Board when the case is pending for trial before the criminal court concerned. In case of an inquiry, the court records a prima facie conclusion but when there is a determination of age as per sub-section (2) of Section 94 of the 2015 Act, a declaration is made on the basis of evidence. Also the age recorded by the JJ Board shall be deemed to be the true age of the person brought before it. Thus, the standard of proof in an inquiry is different from that required in a proceeding where the determination and declaration of the age of a person has to be made on the basis of evidence scrutinised and accepted only if worthy of such acceptance.
33.6. That it is neither feasible nor desirable to lay down an abstract formula to determine the age of a person. It has to be on the basis of the material on record and on appreciation of evidence adduced by the parties in each case.
33.7. This Court has observed that a hypertechnical approach should not be adopted when evidence is adduced on behalf of the accused in support of the plea that he was a juvenile.
33.8. If two views are possible on the same evidence, the court should lean in favour of holding the accused to be a juvenile in borderline cases. This is in order to ensure that the benefit of the JJ Act, 2015 is made applicable to the juvenile in conflict with law. At the same time, the court should ensure that the JJ Act, 2015 is not misused by persons to escape punishment after having committed serious offences.
33.9. That when the determination of age is on the basis of evidence such as school records, it is necessary that the same would have to be considered as per Section 35 of the Evidence Act, inasmuch as any public or official document maintained in the discharge of official duty would have greater credibility than private documents.
33.10. Any document which is in consonance with public documents, such as matriculation certificate, could be accepted by the court or the JJ Board provided such public document is credible and authentic as per the provisions of the Evidence Act viz. Section 35 and other provisions.
33.11. Ossification test cannot be the sole criterion for age determination and a mechanical view regarding the age of a person cannot be adopted solely on the basis of medical opinion by radiological examination. Such evidence is not conclusive evidence but only a very useful guiding factor to be considered in the absence of documents mentioned in Section 94(2) of the JJ Act, 2015.
32. A two-Judge Bench of this Court in P. Yuvaprakash v. State,2023 INSC 676 held thus:
14. Section 94 (2)(iii) of the JJ Act clearly indicates that the date of birth certificate from the school or matriculation or equivalent certificate by the concerned examination board has to be firstly preferred in the absence of which the birth certificate issued by the Corporation or Municipal Authority or Panchayat and it is only thereafter in the absence of these such documents the age is to be determined through an ossification test or any other latest medical age determination test conducted on the orders of the concerned authority, i.e. Committee or Board or Court. In the present case, concededly, only a transfer certificate and not the date of birth certificate or matriculation or equivalent certificate was considered. Ex. C1, i.e., the school transfer certificate showed the date of birth of the victim as 11.07.1997. Significantly, the transfer certificate was produced not by the prosecution but instead by the court summoned witness, i.e., CW-1. The burden is always upon the prosecution to establish what it alleges; therefore, the prosecution could not have been fallen back upon a document which it had never relied upon. Furthermore, DW-3, the concerned Revenue Official (Deputy Tahsildar) had stated on oath that the records for the year 1997 in respect to the births and deaths were missing. Since it did not answer to the description of any class of documents mentioned in Section 94(2)(i) as it was a mere transfer certificate, Ex C-1 could not have been relied upon to hold that M was below 18 years at the time of commission of the offence.
B.The judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vinod Katara v. State of U.P., (2023) 15 SCC 210 : 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1204.Relevant portion of which reads as under :-
"51. What is discernible from the dictum laid down in Ashwani Kumar Saxena [Ashwani Kumar Saxena v. State of M.P., (2012) 9 SCC 750 : (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 594 : AIR 2013 SC 553] is that, in deciding whether an accused is juvenile or not, a hypertechnical approach should not be adopted. While appreciating the evidence adduced on behalf of the accused in support of the plea that he is a juvenile, if two views are possible on the same evidence, the court should lean in favour of holding the accused to be juvenile in borderline cases. The inquiry contemplated is not a roving inquiry. The court can accept as evidence something more than an affidavit i.e. documents, certificates, etc. as evidence in proof of age. A mere opinion by a person as to the accused looking one or two years older than the age claimed by him (as the opinion of the head master in the present case) or the fact that the accused told his age to be more than what he alleges in the case while being arrested by the police officer would not hold much water. It is the documentary evidence placed on record that plays a major role in determining the age of a juvenile in conflict of law. And, it is only in the cases where the documents or certificates placed on record by the accused in support of his claim of juvenility are found to be fabricated or manipulated, that the court, the Juvenile Justice Board or the Committee need to go for medical test for age determination."
C.The judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case ofSanjeev Kumar Gupta v. State of U.P., (2019) 12 SCC 370 : (2019) 4 SCC (Cri) 379 : 2019 SCC OnLine SC 926 at page 380
"16. Both these judgments have since been considered by a two-Judge Bench of this Court in Parag Bhati [Parag Bhati v. State of U.P., (2016) 12 SCC 744 : (2017) 3 SCC (Cri) 819] , where it was observed : (SCC p. 758, para 36)
36. It is settled position of law that if the matriculation or equivalent certificates are available and there is no other material to prove the correctness of date of birth, the date of birth mentioned in the matriculation certificate has to be treated as a conclusive proof of the date of birth of the accused. However, if there is any doubt or a contradictory stand is being taken by the accused which raises a doubt on the correctness of the date of birth then as laid down by this Court in Abuzar Hossain [Abuzar Hossain v. State of W.B., (2012) 10 SCC 489 : (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 83] , an enquiry for determination of the age of the accused is permissible which has been done in the present case.
19. Now it is in this background that it becomes necessary for the Court to determine whether the High Court, in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction, was justified in reversing the view of the learned Sessions Judge that the second respondent was not a juvenile on the date of the incident. In seeking to place reliance on the date of birth (17-12-1998) recorded in the CBSE matriculation certificate, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the second respondent has submitted that under the provisions of Rule 12(3)(a) the said certificate has precedence over any other evidentiary document. In the course of the hearing of the appeal, we directed the CBSE to produce its records and to file an affidavit indicating the basis on which the date of birth was recorded in the matriculation certificate. The affidavit filed by the CBSE indicates that the date of birth in the records maintained by the CBSE was recorded purely on the basis of the final list of students forwarded by Maa Anjani Senior Secondary School, Etah Road, Shikohabad.
21. CBSE has stated before this Court that the date recorded in the matriculation certificate was purely on the basis of the final list of students forwarded by the Headmistress of Maa Anjani Senior Secondary School, Shikohabad. The Headmistress of Maa Anjani Senior Secondary School, Shikohabad deposed during the enquiry before the JJB, Firozabad. In the course of her examination, Headmistress Dipti Solanki stated:
We note down the date of birth of the student at the time of admission as per the information given by the parents and at the same time we obtain an affidavit but we could not procure an affidavit from this student. I have committed a mistake by not procuring an affidavit from this student. The date of birth was entered on the basis of the information given by the parent/father.
The Headmistress further stated:
The father did not produce any record at the time of admission in respect of the date of birth of the student. They would have been asked to produce the record of Class 4 at the time of admission but they did not. I cannot tell the reason thereof. The students are admitted without any document up to Class 5.
The above deposition indicates that the second respondent was admitted to Maa Anjani Senior Secondary School, Shikohabad in the fifth standard and was a student of the school until he completed his matriculation. The second respondent attended Saket Vidya Sthali, Jedajhal, Firozabad until the fourth standard. The school register and transfer certificate form of that school specifically contain an entry in regard to the date of birth of the second respondent as 17-12-1995.
22. Mr Ravindra Singh, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the second respondent has urged that the discrepancies which have been brought out in the course of the cross-examination of the former Manager of the school would indicate that there is a doubt in regard to the authenticity of that certificate. However, in our view, what must weigh against the second respondent's submission is that the date of birth which has been recorded in the certificate of Saket Vidya Sthali completely matches the date of birth which was voluntarily disclosed by the second respondent both while obtaining his driving licence as well as the Aadhaar card. In both those documents, the originals of which were seized during the course of the investigation and have been produced before this Court, the date of birth is reflected as 17-12-1995. The driving licence and the Aadhaar card are not standalone documents. The submission of the learned Senior Counsel that the date of birth in those documents may have been furnished by the accused to obtain an undue advantage cannot simply be accepted since it tallies with the date of birth indicated in the school records of Saket Vidya Sthali School. It is evident from the above analysis that the date of birth which was forwarded in the roll of students of Maa Anjani Senior Secondary School, Shikohabad was the sole basis of the date of birth which was recorded in the matriculation certificate. The date of birth in the records of Maa Anjani Senior Secondary School where the second respondent was a student from Class V to Class X is without any underlying document, as stated by the Principal in the course of the enquiry before the JJB. On the other hand, there is a clear and unimpeachable evidence in the form of the date of birth which has been recorded in the records of Saket Vidya Sthali School which is supported by the voluntary disclosure made by the second respondent while obtaining both the Aadhaar card and the driving licence. The High Court reversed the findings of the Sessions Judge purely on the basis of the matriculation certificate. For the reasons which we have indicated, the date of birth as reflected therein cannot be accepted as authentic or credible. Once we come to the conclusion, as we have, that the date of birth of the second respondent is 17-12-1995, he was not entitled to the claim of juvenility as of the date of the alleged incident which took place on 18-8-2015."
D. The judgment passed by this Court at Allahabad in the case of Kalim v. State of U.P., 2022 SCC OnLine All 2407. Relevant portion of which reads as under :-
"15. Coming to the facts of this matter admittedly, the school leaving certificate, wherein the date of birth was shown as 10.08.2006, issued on 25.11.2020 by the Primary School, Bawan Kheri, Thana-Hasanpur, Amroha was produced, however, the authenticity and the acceptability of that certificate was challenged by the respondent-informant by producing a copy of pariwar register showing date of birth of juvenile as of the year 1999 as well as a driving licence showing the same year of birth. Thereafter, in rebuttal another copy of pariwar register was produced on behalf of the juvenile showing his date of birth as 10.08.2006.
17. From the perusal of the impugned order, it appears that finding the school leaving certificate quite doubtful and finding that there was no underlying document to record his age at the time of admission in the concerned institution coupled with the facts that other documents like copy of pariwar register and driving licence showed different age of the juvenile, in my view, the Juvenile Justice Board and the learned Appellate Court below rightly embarked on an inquiry and radiological age was ordered to be conducted. The courts below cannot be faulted for depending upon the medical/radiological age of the juvenile and declaring him as an adult on the basis of the evidence available in the facts and circumstance of the case. Before this Court, copy of bail order passed in Bail Application No. 70/2022 dated 15.01.2022 passed by the Incharge, Sessions Judge, Amroha and copy of the order passed by this Court on 24.05.2022 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 7301 of 2022 moved on behalf of the present revisionist, who claim himself to be a juvenile, has been brought on record. In the bail application moved before the Sessions Judge, the applicant-revisionist has shown his age as 19 years, which goes against his own claim.
18. In my view, there were enough of reasons to discard the documented age of the juvenile and to call for ossification test, the Board was perfectly justified in seeking evidence for determination of age and drawing its own conclusion based on the evidence available including evidence of radiological test. The Board as well as appellate court both have given a concurrent finding which is not liable to be disturbed by this Court while exercising revisional powers under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, therefore, I do not find any illegality or impropriety in the impugned order."
12. Upon due consideration of the aforesaid, this Court finds that impugned order dated 24.04.2025 passed by Appellate Court whereby the order dated 07.07.2022 passed by JJB has been upheld, by which the age of the revisionist/juvenile has been determined as 16 years, 3 months and 20 days according to medical evidence is justified and no interference in the matter is required. It is for the reason that there is discrepancy in the date of birth of the accused-juvenile and the same is apparent from the following facts.
(i) Paper No. 17Ka/5, copy of Scholar Certificate and T.C. Form of Swaraj Shishu Mandir, Lodhwari, District- Raebareli, duly proved by Shri Sundarlal, Principal, indicates the date of birth i.e. 20.08.2007 of the revisionist/juvenile.
(ii) Another document, i.e. Paper No.17Kha/26, Scholar Register of Primary School, Lodhwari Development Area, Raebareli, duly proved by Shri Piyush Baranwal, Principal of said school, in which the name of the revisionist/juvenile was mentioned at serial number 4027 indicates the date of birth i.e. 29.09.2003 of the revisionist/juvenile.
13. The revision is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs.
(Saurabh Lavania, J)
September 24, 2025
Anand
