[Cites 14, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Child In Confict With Law At Present Aged ... vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 April, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:11475
1 CRR-691-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMIT SETH
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 691 of 2026
CHILD IN CONFLICT WITH LAW THROUGH GUARDIAN FATHER
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri R.K.Sharma - Sr. Advocate assisted by Ms.Bhavya Sharma -
Advocate for the applicant.
Shri Vikram Pippal - Govt. Advocate for respondents No.1 & 2/State.
Shri Atul Gupta - Advocate for respondent No.3.
Reserved on : 31/03/2026
Delivered on : 07/04/2026
ORDER
This criminal revision filed under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice
(Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as "JJ
Act"), takes exception to the order dated 21-01-2026 passed by the Ninth
Additional Sessions Judge, Morena [hereinafter referred to as "ASJ,
Morena"], in Criminal Appeal No. 255/2023, whereby the order dated 26-09-
2023 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, [hereinafter referred to as "JJ
Board"], Morena, has been set aside and the case has been remanded to the
JJ Board, Morena, for making a fresh inquiry in respect of the applicant
(child in conflict with law).
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:11475
2 CRR-691-2026
2. Brief facts leading to filing of the instant criminal revision are as
under:
2.1The applicant herein is an accused in relation to Crime No. 26/2022
registered at Police Station Mata Basaiya, District Morena, for commission
of offences under Sections 363, 366-A, 354 of IPC r/w Section 7/8 of the
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, wherein,
on the complaint of respondent No.3, the respondent No.2 after completing
the investigation has filed charge-sheet against the applicant in the Court.
2.2An application under Sections 15 and 18 of the JJ Act was filed by
respondent No. 3 before the Juvenile Justice Board, Morena, questioning the
juvenile status of the applicant. The JJ Board, after holding an inquiry,
rejected the said application filed by respondent No. 3 vide order dated 26-
09-2023, thereby holding the applicant herein to be a juvenile, as according
to the JJ Board, on the date of incidence, i.e., 20-02-2022, the present
applicant was aged about 15 years and 10 months.
2.3The aforesaid order dated 26-09-2023 passed by the JJ Board was
challenged by respondent No. 3 in Criminal Appeal No. 255/2023, which
came to be allowed by ASJ, Morena, vide order dated 05-03-2025, whereby
the earlier order dated 26-09-2023 passed by the JJ Board, Morena, was set
aside and the matter was remanded to the JJ Board, Morena, for making
fresh inquiry as regards the age of the applicant. The aforesaid order dated
05-03-2025 passed by the ASJ, Morena, was thereafter challenged by the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:11475
3 CRR-691-2026
applicant before this Court in Criminal Revision No. 1175/2025, which was
disposed of vide order dated 27-10-2025, whereby the order dated 05-03-
2025 passed by the ASJ, Morena, in criminal appeal No.255/2023 was set
aside and the matter was remanded to the ASJ, Morena, for deciding the
criminal appeal afresh on merits after giving opportunity of hearing to both
parties.
2.4Thereafter, the ASJ, Morena, decided the Criminal Appeal No.
255/2023 order dated 21-01-2026, whereby while setting aside the order
dated 26-09-2023 passed by the JJ Board, Morena, the matter was remanded
to the JJ Board for making fresh inquiry in respect of the age of the applicant
as per the provisions of Section 94(2) of the JJ Act. It is this order which is
under challenge in the present revision.
3. Learned senior counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the
applicant herein was not admitted to any school prior to Class 4 th and, for the
first time, he was admitted in Ultronious School of Studies in Standard
Fourth and, as per the mark sheet of the said school issued for the session
2014-15, his date of birth is shown as 08-04-2006 (Annexure P-4). The
applicant thereafter studied Class 5th from the Radiant Higher Secondary
School and the mark sheet of the applicant for the session 2015-16 for Class
5 th (Annexure P-5) also reflects the date of birth of the applicant as 08-04-
2006. The applicant thereafter completed his 8th class studies from DSN
High School in the academic session 2016-17, as is evident from his
marksheet filed as Annexure P-6.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:11475
4 CRR-691-2026
4. By referring to Annexure P-7, i.e., an application for admission in
Ultroneous School of Studies in Class 4th, learned senior counsel appearing
for applicant submits that even the said document reflects the date of birth of
applicant as 08/04/2006. The admission register, Annexure P-8, of the very
same school also reflects the age of the applicant as 08/04/2006. He submits
that while the transfer certificate was issued to the applicant by DNS School,
Gwalior after completing Class 8th, due to human error, in the transfer
certificate, the date of birth of the applicant was erroneously mentioned as
08/04/2003, which was nothing but a bonafide human error by the school
authorities. On the strength of the said school leaving certificate issued by
DNS School, Gwalior, in the further educational documents of the applicant
including his Class 10th marksheet, the date of birth of the applicant was
erroneously recorded as 08/04/2003, for which application was submitted for
correction of date of birth by the father of the applicant, but the same was
declined on the ground that the correction in date of birth is permissible only
within two years from the date of issuance of marksheet.
5. Learned senior counsel, by referring to documents filed as
Annexure P-9 to P-13, submits that the schools wherefrom the applicant has
completed his Class 4th and Class 5 th studies have issued certificates clearly
certifying that as per their school record, the correct date of birth of the
applicant is 08/04/2006. Even Dr. Sampurnanand Higher Secondary School,
Awapura, Lashkar, Gwalior had issued a duplicate transfer certificate
(Annexure P-14), wherein the date of birth of the applicant has been
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:11475
5 CRR-691-2026
corrected and shown as 08/04/2006.
6. He submits that in light of these voluminous documentary evidence,
the learned Juvenile Board rightly concluded the date of birth of the
applicant as 08/04/2006 and rightly held that on the date of incident, i.e.,
20/02/2022. The applicant, being 15 years and 10 months of age, was a
juvenile. He submits that the Appellate Court had erred in setting aside the
said order while allowing the appeal preferred by respondent No.2 vide
impugned order dated 21/01/2026. He submits that the findings recorded by
the JJ Board in the inquiry held for determination of the age of the applicant
was since based on evidence adduced before the JJ Board, the appellate
authority ought not to have interfered with the same. He further submits that
even if two dates of birth of the applicant are reflected, then the one, which
extends benefit to the applicant/accused has to be considered. Accordingly,
he submits that the impugned order dated 21/01/2026, though tends to
remand the matter to the JJ Board for reconsideration, however, once the JJ
Board is directed to proceed by taking into consideration the High School
certificate marksheet of the applicant, then there is no second option
available with the JJ Board but to hold the applicant major and not juvenile
on the date of incident, and therefore the order deserves to be interfered with.
In support of his contention, learned senior counsel for the applicant relies
upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajinder
Chandra vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Another (2002) 2 SCC 287, and in the
case of Sanjay vs. State of M.P.; 2007 (1) MPWN 75.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:11475
6 CRR-691-2026
7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 3,
by supporting the impugned order dated 21/01/2026, submits that the
appellate court, by duly marshalling the evidence adduced by the applicant
before the JJ Board and by taking into consideration the statements of the
principals of the schools, has rightly held that the documents which weighed
with the JJ Board to hold the applicant juvenile are all issued subsequent to
the date of incidence/not proved, and therefore, could not have formed the
basis for determining the correct age of the applicant. He submits that
Section 94 (2) of the JJ Act 2015 clearly provides for the procedure and the
material on the basis whereof the age determination of a juvenile is to be
done and the learned appellate court, by taking into consideration the
statutory provision and the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of
P. Yuvaprakash vs. State, represented by Inspector of Police 2023 SCC
Online SC 246, has rightly interfered into the order passed by the JJ Board
and therefore the revision deserves dismissal.
8. Counsel appearing for the State also adopts the arguments advanced
by learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 and prays for dismissal of
the revision petition.
9. No other point has been pressed by learned counsel appearing for
the parties.
10.Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
11.The determination of age is the threshold inquiry in cases under the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:11475
7 CRR-691-2026
JJ Act, and it directly impacts jurisdiction, procedural safeguards, and mode
of trial. Under Section 94 of the JJ Act, age determination must follow the
prescribed hierarchy of documents, with school records being the primary
evidence. For the sake of convenience, the said provision is reproduced as
under:
"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 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:
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."
12.Bearing the foregoing provision in mind, in the present case, the
applicant herein produced multiple documents reflecting two different dates
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:11475
8 CRR-691-2026
of birth which are 08.04.2006 as per the marksheet of Class 5th, and the
application form for admission in Class 4th (Exhibit C-4), so also the
admission register of the Class 4th private school, namely Ultroneous School
of Studies and Radiant Higher Secondary School. However, the marksheet of
High School Certificate Exam (10+2) for the year 2019 issued by the M.P.
Board of Secondary Education Bhopal (Exhibit C-19) indicates the date of
birth of the applicant as 08.04.2003. The date of incidence being 20.02.2022,
the documents issued by the private schools makes the applicant juvenile on
the date of offense, whereas the marksheet (10+2) issued by the M.P. Board
of Secondary Education makes him adult on the date of offense. As per Rule
12 of the JJ Model Rules, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as "Rules of 2016"),
laying down the procedure to be followed for determination of age is to be
seen. The relevant portion of Rule 12 reads as under:
"Rule 12. Procedure to be followed in determination of
age.
... (3) In every case concerning a child or juvenile in
conflict with law, the age determination inquiry shall be
conducted by the Court or the Board or, as the case may
be, the Committee by seeking evidence by obtaining-
(a) (i) the matriculation or equivalent certificates, if
available; and in the absence whereof;
(ii) the date of birth certificate from the school (other
than a play school) first attended; and in the absence
whereof;
(iii) the birth certificate given by a corporation or a
municipal authority or a panchayat;
(b) and only in the absence of either (i), (ii) or (iii) of
clause (a) above, the medical opinion will be sought
from a duly constituted Medical Board, which will
declare the age of the juvenile or child. In case exact
assessment of the age cannot be done, the Court or the
Board or, as the case may be, the Committee, for the
reasons to be recorded by them, may, if considered
necessary, give benefit to the child or juvenile by
considering his/her age on lower side within the margin
of one year, and, while passing orders in such case
shall, after taking into consideration such evidence as
may be available, or the medical opinion, as the case
may be, record a finding in respect of his age and either
of the evidence specified in any of the clauses (a)(i),
(ii), (iii) or in the absence whereof, clause (b) shall be
the conclusive proof of the age as regards such child or
the juvenile in conflict with law."
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:11475
9 CRR-691-2026
13.Rule 12 of the 2016 Rules mandates a hierarchical approach for age
determination of a juvenile, requiring the Court, Board, or Committee to rely
on firstly matriculation or equivalent certificate, secondly, date of birth
certificate from the first attended school (excluding play schools), or thirdly,
birth certificate issued by a corporation, municipal authority, or panchayat.
Only in the absence of these documents, a Medical Board's opinion may be
sought. If an exact assessment is not possible, the authority may, for recorded
reasons, grant the benefit of a one-year margin on the lower side. The
evidence obtained as per this hierarchy is deemed conclusive proof of age.
14.Accordingly, the process of age determination under the JJ Act
does not require mathematical precision but must adhere to the prescribed
statutory framework to ensure fairness and consistency. In the present case,
the JJB has followed the hierarchy laid down in Rule 12, relying on the
first available document in the statutory order of preference.
15.In the above statutory framework, when the facts of the case are
examined in view of the evidence adduced by the parties and as appreciated
by the learned appellate court, it is seen that the High School Certificate
Examination 2019 marksheet of the applicant issued by Madhya Pradesh
Board of Secondary Education (Exhibit C-19) stands duly proved by the
evidence of Principal of Bihari Convent School (CW-3) who in his
statements has categorically deposed that the applicant took admission in
their school on 09.04.2018 on the strength of Class 9th marksheet and
transfer certificate issued by Saraswati Shishu Mandir Morena, wherein the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:11475
10 CRR-691-2026
date of birth of the applicant was recorded as 08/04/2003. The original
admission register (Exhibit P-5), the form of admission of the applicant in
the said school (Exhibit P-6), and the date of birth certificate issued on its
basis (Exhibit P-7), all indicate the date of birth of the applicant as
08/04/2003. The applicant left Saraswati Shishu Mandir Morena after
passing Class 10th on 30/06/2019 by obtaining transfer certificate. The
documentary and oral evidence in the said regard remained unquestionable.
The father of the applicant made application for correction of date of birth of
the applicant in the said documents on 20.05.2022, i.e., only after the date of
incident.
16.Insofar as the marksheets of Class 4 th issued by Ultrunious School
of Studies for the session 2014-15 and the Class 5th marksheet issued from
Radiant Higher Secondary School for the session 2015-16 reflecting the date
of birth of the applicant as 08/04/2006, are concerned, the learned appellate
Courtupon scrutinizing the evidence adduced in the said regard, namely, the
statements of Principal of DNS High School, Sanjay Shrivastava (CW-4), the
admission register of his school for the year 2016-17 and the transfer
certificate issued by the said school, found the same to be wholly unreliable,
as the original record was not certified by the Principal of the school at the
relevant time. The entry in the register recording issuance of transfer
certificates did not contain any reason for issuing the same to the applicant,
whereas in respect of other entries just above the entry of the applicant, the
reason for issuance of transfer certificate were duly recorded in the register
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:11475
11 CRR-691-2026
itself.
17.Moreover, CW-4, i.e., the Principal of DNS High School, in his
cross-examination specifically admitted that he was not posted at the time
when the transfer certificates are said to have been issued. In view thereof
also, the learned appellate Court considered his evidence to be unreliable.
18.Similarly, the evidence of Director of Ultrunious Higher Secondary
School, Shri M.M. Qureshi (CW-2) regarding admission of present applicant
in his school in Class 4th and thereafter leaving the said school for admission
in Class 5th is also found to be unreliable, as the documentary evidence
produced by him indicated manipulation.
19.It is crucial to mention here that the applicant had taken admission
in Class 10th in the year 2018 as per the documents produced by himself. If
the date of birth of the applicant is considered to be 08.04.2006 as claimed
by him, then the consequence would be that at the time of admission in Class
10th, he was 12 years old, whereas if the date of birth of applicant is
considered to be 08.04.2003, then in the year of taking admission in Class
10th, he was aged about 15 years, which is the normal age in which a student
takes admission in Class 10th. This aspect has been specifically dealt with by
the learned appellate Court for not concurring with the findings recorded by
the JJ Board in its order dated 26.09.2023.
20. Moreover, the contention advanced by learned senior counsel for
the applicant that in case two views are possible with regard to the age of a
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:11475
12 CRR-691-2026
juvenile then the one which extends benefit to the child in conflict with law
ought to be adopted is misconceived in the facts of the present case. The
argument of the applicantseeks to equate the findings of the JJ Board and the
Appellate Court as two possible "views" on the same set of evidence and
thereafter urges that the one favourable to the applicant be accepted. Such an
argument is legally incorrect. The appellate Court, in the present case, has
not merely taken an alternate view, but has found that the JJ Board failed to
appreciate the evidence in accordance with the law. Therefore, the situation
is not of two equally plausible views, but of correction of erroneous
approach adopted by the JJ Board.
21. Further, the reliance placed by learned senior counsel for the
applicant on the judgments in Rajinder Chandra (supra) and Sanjay (supra) is
distinguishable on facts. In those cases, the Courts were dealing with
situations where the evidence regarding age was either uncertain or incapable
of exact determination, thereby necessitating extension of benefit. In the
present case, however, a duly proved matriculation certificate issued is
available on record. Hence, there remains no occasion to invoke the principle
of benefit of doubt.
22. Furthermore, the learned appellate Court has not conclusively
determined the age of the applicant so as to finally hold him to be a major,
but has remanded the matter to the JJ Board with a direction to undertake a
fresh inquiry strictly in accordance with Section 94(2) of the JJ Act. The said
direction cannot be said to be suffering from any jurisdictional error or
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:11475
13 CRR-691-2026
palpably illegal. Rather, on the contrary, the said direction is in conformity
with the law laid down by the Apex Court in Yuvaprakash v. State of T.N.,
(2024) 17 SCC 684.
23. In view of the aforesaid discussion and in the given facts and
circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned
order dated 21.01.2026 passed by the ASJ, Morena, does not call for any
interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 102 of the JJ
Act.
24. Accordingly, the present criminal revision fails and is hereby
dismissed. It is made clear that all observations made in this order are only
for the purpose of deciding the present revision and shall not prejudice the
case of either party before the JJ Board. The JJ Board, Morena, is directed to
conclude the inquiry afresh, as directed by the appellate Courtstrictly in
accordance with the provisions of Section 94 of the JJ Act and Rule 12 of
the Rules of 2016.
(AMIT SETH)
JUDGE
Adnan
