Shekhar @ Chandra Shekhar Yadav vs State Of U.P. And Another
2025 Latest Caselaw 11065 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Shekhar @ Chandra Shekhar Yadav vs State Of U.P. And Another on 25 September, 2025

Author: Siddharth

Bench: Siddharth

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:172986
 
Reserved On:-29.08.2025 Delivered On:-25.09.2025
 
 
 
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD 
 
CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3470 of 2025   
 
   Shekhar @ Chandra Shekhar Yadav    
 
  .....Revisionist(s)   
 
 Versus  
 
   State of U.P. and Another    
 
  .....Opposite Party(s)       
 
   
 
  
 
Counsel for Revisionist(s)   
 
:   
 
Shashi Dhar Goswami, Suresh Srivastava   
 
  
 
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)   
 
:   
 
G.A., Vidya Kant Tripathi   
 
     
 
 Court No. - 47
 
   
 
 HON'BLE SIDDHARTH, J.     

1. Heard Ms. Katyani Singh, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Suresh Srivastava, learned counsel for the revisionist; Sri Vidya Kant Tripathi, learned counsel for the informant; learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.

2. The present revision has been filed against the judgment and order dated 25.03.2022 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act), Mirzapur, in Juvenile Criminal Appeal No. 17/2022, and order dated 16.02.2022 passed by Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Mirzapur, arising out of case crime no. 827 of 2014, under sections- 304, 201 of IPC, Police Station- Padri, District- Mirzapur.

3. An application was filed before the Juvenile Justice Board, Mirzapur, praying for declaring the accused as juvenile on the date of incident.

4. In support of his claim, C.W.-1, Shri Sharma Yadav, father of revisionist, was examined who stated in his statement that the revisionist was born in the month of aghan, he is aged about 15 years now and has studied up to class-5th.

5. In his cross-examination, he stated that his wife went to admit revisionist in school. He does not knows what date of birth was recorded in the school by his wife. The revisionist was born at home and he does not remembers his date of birth.

6. C.W.-2, Smt. Seeta, mother of the revisionist, stated that revisionist has studied up to class-5th. She is illiterate and cannot tell his date of birth. His age may be 2-4 months less than 15 years.

7. In her cross-examination she stated that the revisionist was admitted in school by her relatives. She did not got his date of birth recorded in the school. The revisionist was born in the month of aghan on Sunday.

8. C.W.-3, Smt. Neetu Jaiswal, Head Mistress, of Primary School Padari, Mirzapur, gave statement that the revisionist was student of her school and passed class-5th on 20.05.2010. As per the school record his date of birth is 12.08.1999.

9. During cross-examination C.W.-3, admitted that the revisionist was admitted in her school in class-3rd, on the basis of date of birth as informed by his guardian. The revisionist was not admitted in her school by her. Earlier the revisionist was declared juvenile by the Board vide order dated 19.05.2015, but on appeal, the same was set aside by the order dated 24.02.2021 and the matter was remanded to the Juvenile Justice Board.

10. The Juvenile Justice Board found that there was contradiction in the statement of C.W.-1 and his wife, C.W.-2, regarding the identity of the person who went to get the revisionist admitted in the school.

11. C.W.-3 stated that the date of birth mentioned in the school record was not based on any document, but on the information given by the guardian of the child.

12. The informant side produced the voter list wherein the age of the revisionist was mentioned as 18 years and, therefore, the court found contradiction in the date of birth of the revisionist from the voter i.d. card. The Board found that neither C.W.-1 neither C.W.-2 could inform the date of birth of the revisionist. However, the Board got the ossification test of the revisionist conducted on 01.05.2015 wherein his age was found to be 20 years. Therefore, on the date of incident dated 21.12.2014, his age was determined as 19 years, 7 months and 20 days.

13. The Board held that if one year's margin on lower side is given to the accused in the aforesaid age his age will come to 18 years, 7 months and 20 days which is about 18 years and, therefore, he was declared adult and his application to declare him juvenile was rejected by the order dated 16.02.2022.

14. The revisionist preferred appeal against the order dated 16.02.2022 of the Juvenile Justice Board which was dismissed and hence, this revision.

15. Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that both the courts below have committed illegality in rejecting the claim of juvenility of the revisionist. It has been submitted that the courts should have granted two years margin to the revisionist on lower side in the age determined by ossification test and declare him juvenile.

16. Learned counsel for the informant and learned AGA have vehemently opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the revisionist. They have submitted that the revisionist failed to discharge the burden of proof of proving his juvenility before the courts below and, therefore, he is not entitled to any relief from this Court.

17. After hearing the rival submissions, this Court finds that C.W.-3, proved that as per the school record age of the revisionist recorded in school was 12.08.1999. However, she could not inform on what basis aforesaid date of birth was recorded in her school. She stated that the aforesaid date of birth of the revisionist was recorded as per information given by his parents. Therefore, the claim set up before the Juvenile Justice Board by the revisionist on the basis of educational certificate was not found to be proved.

18. The provisions of Sections 94(2) of Juvenile Justice Board (Care and Protection of Children Act, 2015) are quoted as follows:-

"(i) the date of birth certificate from the school, or the matriculation or equivalent certificate 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:"

19. The Section is very clear that where the defence produced documents as per sub-section (i) of the Act and on the basis of the same, the claim of juvenility was set up, there was no requirement of compliance of sub-section (iii) of the Act which requires conducting of ossification test in the absence of documents mentioned is sub-section (i)(ii) of the Section aforesaid. In the present case, the claim was set up on the basis of educational documents, but they were not found to be genuine and hence the claim of juvenility set up was rejected. Therefore, there was no occasion for the courts to have directed for ossification test of the revisionist.

20. The Apex Court in the case of Vinod Katara Vs. State of U.P. passed in Writ Petition No. 121/2022, has held like wire in paragraph no. 20 which is as follows:-

"20. Section 94(2) of the JJ Act provides for the mode of determination of age. In the order of priorities, the date of birth certificate from the school stands at the highest pedestal whereas ossification test has been kept at the last rung to be considered, only in the absence of the criteria Nos. 1 and 2, i.e. in absence of both certificate from school and birth certificate issued by a Corporation/Municipal Authority/Panchayat. "

21. In view of the consideration, this Court is firm view that the revisionist filed to prove his claim of juvenility before the courts below and the ossification test conducted by the Board was against the provisions of Sections (2) of the Act.

22. The revision lacks merit and is hereby dismissed.

(Siddharth,J.)

September 25, 2025//Abhishek