# Ajay Kumar Singh @ Babloo Singh Revisionist v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2022) 4 ILRA 584
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-04-05
- **Case number:** Criminal Revision No. 140 of 2021
- **Bench:** Karunesh Singh Pawar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ajay-kumar-singh-babloo-singh-revisionist-v-state-of-u-p-anr-48270
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

A. Criminal Law - Determination of age of
juvenile - The Juvenile Justice (Care and
Protection of Children) Act, 2015: Section
94 - The age of juvenality at the first
instance be determined by the date of
birth certificate from school, matriculation
or
equivalent
certificate
from
the
concerned examination Board. In absence
of the certificate obtained from the above
mentioned authority, the birth certificate
obtained
from
a
corporation
or
a
municipal authority or a panchayat can be
made basis of determination of age of a
juvenile. The medical test (ossification
test) of the minor is the last measure to be
adopted by the Board or the Court. (Para
12)

The Court did not find any irregularity in High
School certificate and mark sheet produced as a
documentary proof by the private respondents.
(Para 26)
Revision Dismissed. (E-10)

List of Cases cited:-

## Text

584 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

23. Let a copy of this judgment and
order be certified and sent along with the
record of the record of the court below to
the court below concerned for compliance.
----------
(2022)04ILR A584
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 05.04.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR, J.

Criminal Revision No. 140 of 2021
Connected with
Criminal Revision No. 143 of 2021

Ajay Kumar Singh @ Babloo Singh
 ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Kailash Nath Mishra, Rahul Mishra

Counsel for the Respondents:
G.A., Gaurav Misra, Rama Pati Shukla

A. Criminal Law - Determination of age of
juvenile - The Juvenile Justice (Care and
Protection of Children) Act, 2015: Section
94 - The age of juvenality at the first
instance be determined by the date of
birth certificate from school, matriculation
or
equivalent
certificate
from
the
concerned examination Board. In absence
of the certificate obtained from the above
mentioned authority, the birth certificate
obtained
from
a
corporation
or
a
municipal authority or a panchayat can be
made basis of determination of age of a
juvenile. The medical test (ossification
test) of the minor is the last measure to be
adopted by the Board or the Court. (Para
12)

The Court did not find any irregularity in High
School certificate and mark sheet produced as a
documentary proof by the private respondents.
(Para 26)
Revision Dismissed. (E-10)

List of Cases cited:-

1. Atul Singh Sengar Vs St.of U.P. & anr.
Criminal
Revision
No.
2881
of
2019
(distinguished)

2. Irfan Vs St.of U.P. & anr. Criminal Revision
No. 3188 of 2017 (distinguished)

3. Yalajindra Kaur Vs St.of U.P. & anr. Criminal
Revsiison No. 1472 of 2014

4. Jai Nand Sharma Vs St.of U.P. & anr. 2009 (6)
Adj 723

5. Sher Singh alias Sheru Vs St.of U.P. 2017 Crl.
L.J. 233

6. Shailendra Kumar Yadav Vs St.of U.P. & anr.
2014 (8) ADJ 329

7. Kallu Yadav @ Balram Vs St.of U.P. & anr.
2017 (6) ADJ 81

8. Sri Ganesh Vs St.of T.N. & anr. Criminal
Appeal No. 39 of 2017

9. Ashwani Kumar Saxena Vs St.of M.P. (2012) 9
SCC 750
(Delivered by Hon'ble Karunesh Singh
Pawar, J.)

1. These two revisions arise out of
same crime number and the offence(s) in
which both the private respondents have
been implicated are the same, they are
taken up together and are being decided by
the present common order.

2. Both the Criminal Revisions have
been preferred challenging orders dated
29.7.2020 passed by Juvenile Justice
Board, Gonda in Misc. Case No.15 of 2020
State versus Uday Pratap Singh and others
and
the
judgment
and
order
dated
21.11.2020 passed by Addl. Sessions
Judge/Special Judge, POCSO Act, Gonda
4 All. Ajay Kumar Singh @ Babloo Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
585
in Criminal appeal Nos. 29 Ajay Kumar
Singh versus State of U.P. and Pushpendra
Singh, and 30 of 2020 Ajay Kumar Singh
alias Babloo Singh versus State and Uday
Pratap Singh, arising out of Case Crime
No.66 of 2020, under sections 147, 148,
149, 307, 302, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 7
Criminal Law Amendment Act, P.S. Umari
Begum Ganj, district Gonda.

3. By orders dated 29.7.2020 (supra),
the Juvenile Justice Board has declared both
the private respondents, i.e. Uday Pratap
Singh and Pushpendra Singh as juvenile on
the basis of High School Mark Sheet and by
appellate order dated 21.11.2020, learned
Addl.
Sessions
Judge/Special
Judge,
POCSO Act, Gonda while upholding the
order dated 29.7.2020 has dismissed the
appeal preferred by the informant/revisionist
Ajay Kumar Singh alias Babloo Singh.

4. Heard learned counsel for the
revisionist as well as learned counsel
appearing for private respondents and
learned Addl. Government Advocate for the
State.

5. The private respondents, i.e.
respondent No.2 in both the criminal
revisions
moved
an
application
for
declarating
them
juvenile.
The
said
applications were decided on the basis of
evidence adduced by the private respondents
by the Juvenile Justice Board vide order
under challenge. The date of birth of
Pushpendra Singh in High School mark sheet
has been mentioned as 10.7.2002. The
incident took place on 3.4.2020. On the basis
of this date of birth as recorded in the High
School mark sheet, it has been held by
Juvenile Justice Board that Pushpendra Singh
was 17 years 8 months and 24 days on the
date of incident and thus, he has been
declared as juvenile.

The
date
of
birth
of
other
accused/respondent No.2 Uday Pratap
Singh as recorded in the High School Mark
Sheet is 5.7.2002 and on the date of
incident, he has been declared as juvenile
being his age as 17 years 8 months and 29
days. For determination of age, the learned
court below has also considered the
evidence given by C.W.1 mother(s) of
private respondents and C.W.2 Maan
Singh, Incharge Principal of Shri Parashar
Rishi Uchchtar Madhyamik Vidyalaya,
Paras
Gonda
and
other
educational
certificates. As said above, the appeals
preferred against the order passed by the
Juvenile Justice Board have been rejected.

6. Learned counsel for the revisionist
submits that on the date of incident, i.e. on
3.4.2020, the respondents No.2 were major.
The real grandfather of Pushpendra Singh
was Head Master in Primary School and he
has got recorded the date of birth of
Pushpendra Singh. He received initial
education from Primary to Tenth class in
Raghukul Vidya Peeth, Gonda and since he
was not successful in Tenth Class, hence he
took his admission in Parashar Rishi High
School, Paras Patti and cleared the High
School examination in 2018. It is submitted
by learned counsel for the revisionist that
although he has submitted before the Board
to summon the transfer certificate from the
Primary School, however, the Board did
not accede the prayer made by the
revisionist.

Learned counsel for the revisionist
further submits that both the Courts below
also did not consider the objection raised
by the revisionist that the both the
accused/respondents No.2 are major. To
substantiate his argument, the revisionist's
counsel has submitted before the Courts
below that it is necessary that the private
586 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
respondents be sent to undergo medical
examination to be conducted by Medical
Board so as to assess their correct age.
However, during the course of hearing, the
juvenile has produced school certificate
issued by Raghukul vidya Peeth. Thus, it
was opined by the Board that the objection
is quite formal in nature. Learned lower
appellate court has also failed to consider
the grounds taken in the appeal.

Learned counsel has next submitted that
the source of information on the basis of
which entry of date of birth of respondent
No.2 in the school record has not been
furnished and there is no evidence on the
record which can be said to be source of
information regarding date of birth of
respondent
No.2.
In
support
of
his
submission, learned counsel has relied on a
judgment dated 21.1.2020 rendered in
Criminal Revision No.2881 of 2019 Atul
Singh Sengar versus State of U.P. and
another and judgment and order dated
24.9.2018 passed in Criminal Revision
No.3188 of 2017 Irfan versus State of U.P.
and another.

Supplementing his arguments, learned
counsel
has
submitted
that
the
certificate/mark sheet issued by the school or
the school record cannot be relied upon
blindly and in case of any doubt, the court is
empowered to ignore it. In this context,
learned counsel has relied on a judgment of
this Court dated 12.9.2019 passed in Criminal
Revision No.1472 of 2014 Yalajindra Kaur
versus State of U.P. and another.

Learned counsel for the revisionists
has submitted that the learned appellate
court while passing the impugned judgment
dated 21.11.2020 has failed to consider the
grounds mentioned in the appeal and
rejected the same by a cryptic order with
the observation that there is no infirmity
and illegality in the order dated 29.7.2020
passed by the Juvenile Justice Board.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of respondents No.2
submits that the both the courts below have
appreciated the evidence on record and
have
rightly
declared
the
private
respondents/accused as juvenile on the
basis of the date of birth as recorded in the
High School certificate. The Board has
examined C.W.1 Kiran wife of Dinesh
Singh and C.W.2 Maan Singh, Incharge
Head Master of Sri Parashar Rishi Higher
Secondary School, Paras, District Gonda in
the case of Pushpendra Singh. They stated
in unambiguous terms that the date of birth
as recorded in the High School certificate is
correct.

In the case of Uday Pratap Singh,
C.W.1 Yashoda Singh who is his mother
and Maan singh, who is Incharge Head
Master of Sri Parashar Rishi Higher
Secondary School, Paras, district Gonda
were examined. They proved the date of
birth of Uday Pratap Singh as recorded in
the certificate as correct.

It is next submitted on behalf of
private respondents that the provisions of
Section 102 of The Juvenile Justice (Care
and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 are
pari-materia with the provisions of Section
397 CrPC and as such, it is submitted that
the findings of facts cannot be interfered
without showing that the findings are
perverse. In this context, learned counsel
has relied on Jai Nand Sharma versus The
State of U.P. and another 2009(6) AdJ
723(relevant para 5), Sher Singh alias
Sheru versus The State of U.P. 2017 Crl.
L.J. 233 (relevant paras 60, 67, 68).

It is further submitted that there is no
illegality in the orders passed by both the
courts below as regards the determination
of age of the accused on the basis of the
date
of
birth
as
recorded
in
the
matriculation
certificate
and
the
4 All. Ajay Kumar Singh @ Babloo Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
587
evidence(s) adduced before it. In this
context, learned counsel has relied on
Shailendra Kumar Yadav versus The
State of U.P. and another 2014(8) ADJ
329 (para10) and Kallu Yadav alias
Balram versus The State of U.P. and
another 2017(6) ADJ 81 (relevant paras
14, 15, 16).

The respondents No.2 in both the
cases are languishing in jail since 4.4.2020,
i.e. for the last about two years and under
the statute, three years punishment to the
juvenile has been provided and thus, the
accused/juveniles have already undergone a
substantial period in jail.

8. I have considered the arguments
advanced by the learned counsel for the
parties.

9. A perusal of the order dated
29.7.2020 passed by the Juvenile Justice
Board reveals that in case of Uday Pratap
Singh, the Board has considered the
Transfer Certificates issued by Raghukul
Vidya Peeth and Shri Parashar Rishi
Uchchtar Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Paras,
Gonda and the Assessment Report Card as
also the table register (Sarniyan Panjika) of
Madhyamik
Shiksha
Parishad,
U.P.
Examination, 2018 which has been counter
signed by the Principal and District
Inspector of Schools, Gonda. In all these
documents, the date of birth of the juvenile
has been recorded as 5.7.2002. The Board
has also considered the evidence of C.W.1
Yashoda Singh, mother of the juvenile and
C.W.2 Man Singh, incharge Principal, Shri
Parashar
Rishi
Uchchtar
Madhyamik
Cidyalaya Paras, Gonda.

C.W. 1 Yashoda Singh has proved the
date of birth of her son Uday Pratap Singh
as 9.7.2002. She stated that Uday Pratap
Singh had studied from class First to Fifth
in Raghukul Vidya Peeth and at the time of
his admission, she had got recorded his
date of birth. Uday Pratap Singh has
studied from Sixth to Tenth class in
Parashar Rishi School.

C.W.2 Maan Singh also substantiated
the date of birth of Uday Pratap Singh as
5.7.2002. The juvenile Uday Pratap Singh
had taken his admission in Shri Parashar
Rishi Uchchtar Madhyamik vidyalaya,
Gonda in Class-IX and at the time of his
admission, transfer certificate of Class-VIII
was submitted in the school and the date of
birth recorded in the transfer certificate was
recorded in the school register, i.e. the
scholar register which has been duly
counter signed by District Inspector of
Schools.

10.

After
considering
all
the
certificates, evidence adduced before it as
also
the
objections
raised
by
the
informant/revisionist, the Board by means
of order under revision has declared the
private respondent as juvenile.

Likewise, in the case of Pushpendra
Singh, the Juvenile Justice Board after
considering the transfer certificate issued by
Shri Parashar Rishi Uchchtar Madhyamik
vidyalaya, Gonda, the table register (Sarniyan
Panjika) of Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad,
U.P. Examination, 2018 which has been
counter signed by the Principal and District
Inspector of Schools, Gonda in which the
date of birth of the accused has been recorded
as 10.7.2002 as also the statement of C.W.1
Kiran, mother of Pushpendra Singh and
C.W.2 Maan Singh, has come to the
conclusion that Pushpendra Singh was a
juvenile at the time of the incident, being his
age as 17 years 8 months and 24 days.

11. The orders passed by the Juvenile
Justice Board were challenged before the
588 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
learned lower appellate court who found no
illegality in the orders passed by the Board
and thus rejected both the appeals.

12. Section 94 of The Juvenile Justice
(Care and Protection of Children) Act,
2015 provides the procedure to be followed
by the courts or the Boards for the purpose
of determination of age in every case
concerning a child in conflict with law. The
said provision is extracted below :

"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."

(Emphasised)

A perusal of sub section (2) of Section
94 provides that the Court or the Board
shall determine the age by undertaking the
process of age determination by seeking
evidence by obtaining the date of birth
certificate from the school, matriculation or
equivalent certificate from the concerned
examination Board if available, and in
absence thereof and in case the certificate
as given in Clause (i) above, is not
available, then the birth certificate of a
corporation or a municipal authority or a
panchayat can be made the basis of
determination of age of a juvenile. Further,
in case the document(s) as given in clauses
(i) (ii), above extracted, are not available,
then the age shall be determined by an
ossification test to be conducted on the
order of the Board.

13. In the case in hand, the Board was
having the matriculation certificate or
equivalent certificate of the concerned
examination and since they were available,
there was no occasion for the Board to have
gone into the other documents, such as
birth certificate issued by the local bodies
or even electoral roll etc.

14. The argument of the learned
counsel for the revisionist that the juvenile
4 All. Ajay Kumar Singh @ Babloo Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
589
should have been produced before the
Medical Board for ossification test is misconceived in the light of specific provision
given in Clause (iii), above extracted,
which
provides
that
age
shall
be
determined by an ossification test to be
conducted on the order of the board in case
the documents as provided in Clause (i) and
(ii) of Sub Section (2) of Section 94 are not
produced
before
the
Board
or
the
Committee as the case may be. The
medical test of the minor is the last
measure to be adopted by the Board or the
Court in case no authentic document is
available before it as provided in section 94
of the Act.

15. As regards the judgment in
Valajindra
Kaur's
case
(supra),
particularly para 14 thereof, relied on by
revisionist's
counsel,
it
would
be
appropriate to refer the said para which
is extracted below :

"14. The purpose of the above
discussion is that the age of juveni1ity
can be determined on the basis of high
school certificate/marks-sheet or school
record if there is no doubt with regards
to genuineness and authenticity thereof.
When there arises reasonable doubt in
respect thereof, the same cannot be
relied
blindly
and
the
court
is
empowered under law to ignore the
same. "

From the above extracted finding, it
is evident and has no doubt that the age
of juvenality at the first instance can be
determined on the basis of High School
mark sheet or the school record in case
there
is
no
doubt
regarding
its
genuineness or authenticity. The said
document can only be ignored if there is
any doubt about its genuineness.

16. In the present case, there was no
doubt regarding the correctness of the
matriculation certificate produced on behalf
of the juvenile. The date of birth recorded
in the High School certificate has been
further fortified by the evidence of C.W.1
and C.W.2 and other educational cerficates.
Thus, there was no occasion for the Board
to have sent the accused/juvenile for
ossification test.

17. As regards the argument that the
learned
Court
below
should
have
summoned the original document of the
school in which the private respondents had
first taken admission and the case relied on
in this respect, i.e. Atul Singh Sengar's
case (supra), it is significant to mention that
in the case of Atul Singh Sengar, there
were tampering and manipulation in the
school register qua the date of birth of the
accused/juvenile as also false averment was
made by the accused and in those
circumstances, the Court has relied on the
date of birth as recorded in the school
where the juvenile first attended. It is not
the case here in the present case, as
elaborated above and need not be repeated,
and therefore, the case relied on by the
learned counsel is also not applicable in the
present case.

18. The judgment relied on by the
learned counsel for the revisionist in the
case of Irfan (supra) is also not of any help
to the revisionist in the present case as the
facts of the said case were quite different
from the case in hand. In that case, a
transfer certificate was filed by the
applicant claimed to have been issued by
Madan Junior Basic School with respect to
his schooling prior to his admission in High
School in Prem Prayag Kanya Inter
College, Bhogaon, Mainpuri. A suspicion
was raised on the veracity of the High
590 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
School record and the very important
witness C.W.4 Principal of Madan Junior
Basic School revealed that the juvenile had
never studied in Madan Junior Basic
School, Bhagaon, Mainpuri and the transfer
certificate allegedly issued by the school is
fake. In such circumstances the Juvenile
Justice Board did not give effect to the date
of birth found recorded in the High School
certificate of the applicant and instead gave
effect to the date of birth found recorded in
the record of the Primary School, Muitra
Chak.

19. Further, in this case, C.W.2 Maan
Singh Incharge Principal of Shri Parashar
Rishi Uchchatar Madhyalaya, Paras, Gonda
has testified before the Juvenile Justice
Board and has proved the date of birth of
both the juveniles as correct as recorded in
matriculation certificate.

20. Similarly, C.W.1 who are mother
of the private respondents have adduced
their evidence and have proved the date of
birth of the juveniles.

21. Supreme Court in the case of Sri
Ganesh versus State of Tamilnadu and
another Criminal appeal No.39 of 2017
while relying on the judgment in Ashwani
Kumar Saxena versus State of Madhya
Pradesh (2012)9 SCC 750 has held in paras
32 and 33 as under :

"32. Consequently, the procedure to
be followed under the J.J. Act in
conducting an inquiry is the procedure laid
down in that statute itself i.e. Rule 12 of the
2007 Rules. We cannot import other
procedures laid down in the Code of
Criminal
Procedure
or
any
other
enactment while making an inquiry with
regard to the juvenility of a person, when
the claim of juvenility is raised before the
court exercising powers under section 7A
of the Act. Many of the cases, we have
come across, it is seen that the Criminal
Courts are still having the hangover of the
procedure of trial or inquiry under the code
if they are trying an offence under the
Penal laws forgetting the fact that the
specific procedure has been laid down in
section 7A read with Rule 12.

33. We also remind all Courts/J.J.
Board and the Committees functioning
under the Act that a duty is cast on them to
seek evidence by obtaining the certificate
etc. mentioned in Rule 12 (3) (a) (i) to (iii).
The courts in such situations act as a
parens patriae because they have a kind of
guardianship over minors who from their
legal disability stand in need of protection.

34.
"Age
determination
inquiry"
contemplated under section 7A of the Act
r/w Rule 12 of the 2007 Rules enables the
court to seek evidence and in that process,
the court can obtain the matriculation or
equivalent certificates, if available. Only
in the absence of any matriculation or
equivalent certificates, the court need
obtain the date of birth certificate from the
school first attended other than a play
school.
Only
in
the
absence
of
matriculation or equivalent certificate or
the date of birth certificate from the
school first attended, the court need obtain
the birth certificate given by a corporation
or a municipal authority or a panchayat
(not an affidavit but certificates or
documents). The question of obtaining
medical opinion from a duly constituted
Medical Board arises only if the above
mentioned documents are unavailable. In
case exact assessment of the age cannot be
done, then the court, for reasons to be
recorded, may, if considered necessary,
give the benefit to the child or juvenile by
considering his or her age on lower side
within the margin of one year.
4 All. Ajay Kumar Singh @ Babloo Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
591

From the above extracted judgment, it
is evident that only in absence of a
matriculation or equivalent certificate or
date of birth of the school first attended, the
Court needs to obtain the birth certificate
given by a corporation or a municipal
authority or a panchayat (not an affidavit
but certificates or documents). The court
further held that in case the above referred
document is not available then only the age
determination can be made on the basis of
the report of the Medical Board constituted
for the purpose.

22. As said above, in the present case,
the matriculation certificate and the other
school records as also the testimony of
C.W.1 and C.W.2 were there before the
Board, therefore, there was no occasion for
the Board to call for the records of Primary
School or the school where the juvenile had
first
attended.
There
was
also
no
justification at all to send the juveniles for
ossification test as the sufficient evidence
was
available
before
the
Board
to
determine the age of the juveniles.

23. Section 102 of Indian Evidence
Act provides that whoever desires any
court to give judgment as to any legal right
or liability depends on existence of facts
which he asserts, must prove that those
facts exist. Thus, when a person is bound to
prove the existence of any fact, it is said
that the burden of proof lies on that person.
Thus, the burden of proof would ordinarily
be on the party who asserts the affirmative
of the issue.

24. In the present case, the case of
juvenility has been proved by both the
accused
persons/private
respondents.
Contrary to it, the informant revisionist was
under legal obligation to prove by cogent
evidence that respondents No.2 were not
juvenile. No evidence has been adduced by
the informant/revisionist to discharge his
burden that the respondents No.2 were not
juvenile. The application filed by the
Juveniles for declaration of their being a
juvenile will fail only if both the parties do
not adduce any evidence in view of Section
102.

25. In the present case, the date of
birth figuring in the High School certificate
has been endorsed and affirmed by C.W.1,
mother of the private respondents as also
by C.W.2 Maan Singh, Incharge, Head
Master of Sri Parashar Rishi Higher
Secondary School, Paras, district Gonda.
The informant/revisionist has not filed any
document to prove that the date of birth of
Pushpendra Singh and Uday Pratap Singh
is different than recorded in High School
mark-sheet and certificate. During enquiry
before the Board and before the learned
appellate court, no evidence to show that
the date of birth is different or they are not
juvenile could not be shown by the
informant/revisionist.

26. The High School certificate as per
the Juvenile Justice Act as also the various
judgments of this Court as well as Supreme
Court is a reliable document to determine
the date of birth of the juvenile. The
determination of the age has been done
according to the date of birth recorded in
the matriculation certificate and the other
evidence adduced before the Courts below.
Unless
some
documentary
proof
or
evidence is produced before the Board or
the lower appellate court which may negate
the correctness of the High School
certificate and mark sheet, no irregularity
or illegality can be fastened to the finding
given by the Board or the lower appellate
Court while declaring the accused as
juvenile.
592 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

27. I find no irregularity or illegality
in the concurrent finding of fact arrived at
by the Juvenile Justice Board and the lower
appellate court.

28. The revisions, being devoid of
merit, are dismissed.
----------
(2022)04ILR A592
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 26.04.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE BRIJ RAJ SINGH, J.

Criminal Revision No. 189 of 2014

Sagir Ahmad ...Revisionist
Versus
The State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opp. Parties

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Arun Sinha, Siddharth Sinha

Counsel for the Opp. Parties:
Govt. Advocate

A. Criminal Law - The Court observed that the
lower court has not taken into consideration the
other circumstances available before him and
passed the order solely on the basis of the
St.ment of P.W. 1 and P.W. 3 which is not
proper. (Para 15)

In
absence
of
proof
of
other
circumstances, the only circumstance of
last
seen
together
and
absence
of
satisfactory explanation, cannot be a
ground for conviction. (Para 13)
Revision Allowed. (E-10)

List of Cases cited:-

1. Anjan Kumar Sarma Vs St. of Assam (2017)
14 SCC 359

2. Brijendra Singh & ors Vs St. of Raj. (2017) 7
SCC 706
3. Arjun Marik & ors. Vs St. of Bihar 1994 Supp.
(2) SCC 372

4. Hardeep Singh Vs St. of Pun.(2014) 3 SCC 92

5. Ravindra Nath Mishra Vs St. of U.P.
Application under Section 482 bearing No. 6936
of 2019

6. Sartaj Singh Vs St. of Har. & anr. (2021) 5
SCC 337

7. Dev Wati & ors. Vs St. of Har. & ors. 2019
(195) AIC 225 (S.C.)
(Delivered by Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh, J.)

1. Heard Sri Arun Sinha, learned
counsel for the revisionist and Sri Anurag
Verma, learned AG.A. for the State and
perused the record.

2. This Criminal Revision has been
filed against the judgment and order dated
11.04.2014 passed by Additional Sessions
Judge, Court No.8, Sitapur in Case S.T.
No.772/2009, State versus Mainul Haq and
others,arising
out
of
Case
Crime
No.534/2009, Under section 302, 120-B
I.P.C., Police Station- Khairabad, DistrictSitapur, summoning the revisionist as
accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to face
trial under Section 302/120-B I.P.C.
Further prayer has been made that the
proceeding of the case may be stayed
during the pendency of the present revision.

3. The complainant had moved an
application on 11.04.2012 to summon the
accused-revisionist in proceedings under
Section 319 Cr.P.C. In the said application,
the
complainant
submitted
that
the
revisionist was named in the F.I.R. In the
complaint, it is also alleged that there was
dispute of land property in between Azra
Rizvi and Sagir Ahmad(revisionist) and her
husband was threatened by the revisionist.