# Akhilesh Revisionist v. The State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2024) 3 ILRA 19
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-10-27
- **Case number:** Criminal Revision No. 105 of 2021
- **Bench:** Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/akhilesh-revisionist-v-the-state-of-u-p-anr-50944
- **Pages:** 10

## Headnote

and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 -
Section 2(l) - Juvenile Justice (Care and
Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 - Rule
12(3) - Age Determination - Revisionist
challenged appellate order dated 04.12.2020
setting aside Juvenile Justice Board's order
dated 03.04.2015, which declared him juvenile -
Held, Juvenile Justice Board correctly relied on
High School marksheet (DOB: 24.09.1997) and
medical board report (age ~18 years in 2015) to
determine revisionist's age as 16 years, 4
months, and 7 days on date of incident
(01.02.2014), declaring him juvenile - Rule
12(3) prioritizes matriculation certificate for age
determination; only if forged or unavailable can
school first attended records or medical opinion
be considered - No finding that High School
marksheet was forged, rendering appellate
court's reliance on primary school records (DOB:
07.02.1995)
and
revisionist's
affidavit
in
unrelated proceedings erroneous - Parag Bhati
Vs St. of U.P. and Meghraj Sharma Vs St. of
U.P.
followed,
emphasizing
matriculation
certificate's primacy unless proven fabricated -
Medical report, consistent with High School
marksheet, supports juvenility; benefit of lower
age margin (within one year) applies per Rule
12(3)(b) - Appellate court's order set aside,
Juvenile
Justice
Board's
order
declaring
revisionist juvenile affirmed. (Para 19-30)

Criminal revision allowed.

List of Cases Cited:

## Text

3 All. Akhilesh Vs. The State of U.P. & Anr.
19

30. The revision lacks merits
and the same is hereby dismissed.
----------
(2024) 3 ILRA 19
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 27.10.2023
BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAM MANOHAR NARAYAN
MISHRA, J.

Criminal Revision No. 105 of 2021

Akhilesh ...Revisionist
Versus
The State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Sri Dinesh Kumar Yadav, Sri Atmaram
Nadiwal

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A.

Juvenile Justice - Juvenile Justice (Care
and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 -
Section 2(l) - Juvenile Justice (Care and
Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 - Rule
12(3) - Age Determination - Revisionist
challenged appellate order dated 04.12.2020
setting aside Juvenile Justice Board's order
dated 03.04.2015, which declared him juvenile -
Held, Juvenile Justice Board correctly relied on
High School marksheet (DOB: 24.09.1997) and
medical board report (age ~18 years in 2015) to
determine revisionist's age as 16 years, 4
months, and 7 days on date of incident
(01.02.2014), declaring him juvenile - Rule
12(3) prioritizes matriculation certificate for age
determination; only if forged or unavailable can
school first attended records or medical opinion
be considered - No finding that High School
marksheet was forged, rendering appellate
court's reliance on primary school records (DOB:
07.02.1995)
and
revisionist's
affidavit
in
unrelated proceedings erroneous - Parag Bhati
Vs St. of U.P. and Meghraj Sharma Vs St. of
U.P.
followed,
emphasizing
matriculation
certificate's primacy unless proven fabricated -
Medical report, consistent with High School
marksheet, supports juvenility; benefit of lower
age margin (within one year) applies per Rule
12(3)(b) - Appellate court's order set aside,
Juvenile
Justice
Board's
order
declaring
revisionist juvenile affirmed. (Para 19-30)

Criminal revision allowed.

List of Cases Cited:

1. Meghraj Sharma Vs St. of U.P.; Criminal
Revision No. 3449 of 2019, decided on
14.07.2021

2. Parag Bhati (Juvenile) Vs St. of U.P.; (2016)
12 SCC 744

3. Ashwani Kumar Saxena Vs St. of M.P.; (2012)
9 SCC 750

4. Hari Ram Vs St. of Raj.; (2009) 13 SCC 211

5. Om Prakash Vs St. of Raj.; (2012) 5 SCC 201

6. Abuzar Hossain Vs St. of W.B.; (2012) 10 SCC
489

7. Rajendra Chand Vs St. of Chhattisgarh;
(2002) 2 SCC 287

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ram Manohar
Narayan Mishra, J.)

1. Learned counsel for the revisionist
and
learned
A.G.A.
for
the
Staterespondent are present.

2. None appeared on behalf of
respondent No.2.

3. Notice has been served on
respondent Nos. 1. Notice has also been
served upon respondent No.2, through
A.G.A. as well as C.J.M. concerned.

4. The instant Criminal Revision has
been preferred by the revisionist/accused
against the judgment and order dated
04.12.2020 passed by learned Session
20 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Judge, Maharajganj in Criminal Appeal
No.32 of 2019 Smt. Kumari @ Phul
Kumari Vs. State of U.P. and another,
whereby the order dated 03.04.2015 of
Juvenile
Justice
Board,
Maharajganj,
District Maharajganj has been set-aside and
the application of the revisionist for
declaration of his juvenility is rejected. The
accused has been declared as major on the
date of incident dated 01.02.2014. Ramakant,
father of the revisionist is deponent in present
revision.

5. Heard learned counsel for the
revisionist as well as learned A.G.A.
appearing for the State and perused the
material available on record.

6. The factual matrix of the case in brief
are that First Information Report dated
22.03.2014 was lodged at the instance of
mother of the victim against named accused
Akhilesh under Section 363, 366 of I.P.C. in
Case Crime No.296 of 2014 and after
investigation accused has been chargesheeted
under Sections 363, 366ka, 376 of I.P.C. and
Section 3/4 of POCSO Act, P.S. Maharajganj
with the allegation that accused enticed away
his minor daughter aged about 14 years
studying in Class IXth, in the night of
01.02.2014 at around 10 PM; both victim and
accused belonged to schedule caste. She
searched for her daughter for many days, but
could not trace her out. Her daughter also
took away some ornaments and cash with
her. Police submitted chargesheet against the
accused under Section 363, 366Ka and 376
of I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act
placing reliance on statement of victim under
Section 164 Cr.P.C. as well as other
evidences
collected
during
the
investigation.

7. The accused moved an application
before
the
Juvenile
Justice
Board,
Maharajganj, with averment that on the
date of alleged incident dated 01.02.2014
he was declared juvenile. As his date of
birth is mentioned as 24.09.1997 in his
High School Marksheet, the said marksheet
has been issued by Janta Uchchatar
Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Harpur Pakadi,
District Maharajganj. The Juvenile Justice
Board placed reliance on date of birth
mentioned in the High School Marksheet of
the accused which was verified by evidence
of the clerk of said school by his sworn
testimony before the court. He also
produced scholar register of the accused in
which his name is mentioned at Serial
No.5341, where he received education from
class VIth to Xth and his date of birth is
mentioned as 24.02.1997 therein. The said
clerk
also
produced
High
School
marksheet, transfer certificate, attendance
and fee registers and filed photocopies of
the same with his attestation. He was also
cross-examined
by
the
counsel
for
informant in juvenile inquiry proceedings,
whereas the stand of the informant was that
the accused
received his elementary
education in Primary School, Harpur
Pakadi, Maharajganj, wherein his date of
birth is mentioned as 17.02.1995, and to
prove that document acting Headmaster
Prathmik Vidyalaya, Harpur Pakadi, Sri
Manish Kumar was examined as P.W.1. As
two different documents were produced
with regard to date of birth of the accused,
a medical board was constituted on orders
of Juvenile Justice Board, wherein the age
of accused was ascertained around 18 years
in its report dated 25.03.2015.

8. Learned Juvenile Justice Board also
observed that on the basis of date of birth
mentioned in the High School marksheet of
the accused his age comes to 16 years 4
months and 7 days on the date of incident,
which has been certified by CW1 and
3 All. Akhilesh Vs. The State of U.P. & Anr.
21
CW2. The report of Chief Medical Officer
dated 25.03.2015 also corroborates the age
of the accused which is calculated on the
basis of date of birth mentioned in High
School marksheet. The Juvenile Justice
Board
also
observed
that
the
age
determination report of medical board has
been filed after one year of the incident,
therefore, in all probability the accused was
below 18 years of age on the date of incident
and declared him juvenile in conflict of law
under Section 2(L) Juvenile Justice (Care and
Protection of Children) Act, 2000 by order
dated 03.04.2015.

9. Feeling aggrieved by the age
determination report and declaration of the
accused as juvenile in conflict of law, the
informant filed a Criminal Appeal before
Session Judge, Maharajganj which was
allowed by impugned order, and the
application for declaration of juvenility
moved by the revisionist was rejected and
accused was declared major.

10. Learned counsel for the revisionist
submitted that the approach of learned
appellate court is contrary to settled law, as
the date of birth mentioned in High School
marksheet of the accused as well as the age
determination report of medical board both
fairly suggests that accused was below 18
years of age on the date of incident. However,
learned appellate court placed reliance on age
of the accused as stated by him before this
Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.9053 of
2014 (Smt. Radhika and others Vs. State of
U.P. ), in which he has stated his age as 24
years in affidavit on the basis of his Voter
Identity Card as well as his date of birth
mentioned in the record of Primary School
Harpur Pakadi, Ghivhan as 07.02.1995.

11. He further contended that the
impugned order passed by learned court
below is not sustainable under law and
deserves to be set-aside. He also contended
that learned appellate court has failed to
consider the provisions of Rule 12(3) of
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of
Children), Rules 2007 in which the
guidelines for age determination of a
juvenile in conflict of law are clearly
mentioned. Learned appellate court also
placed reliance on the judgment of this
Court in Meghraj Sharma vs State Of
U.P. And Anr. in Criminal Revision
No.3449 of 2019 decided on 14.07.2021,
wherein this Court in paragraph No.44
observed as under:-

"44.
On
the
basis
of
interpretation of law by Apex Court and
discussed above, the salient features that
can be culled out for determination of age
of a juvenile under the 2007 Rules are:

(i) If Matriculation Certificate is
available, only the same is to be relied
upon for determination of age.

(ii) Matriculation Certificate can
be disbelieved only if it is forged or
fabricated which has to be adjudicated
after enquiry and sufficient evidence to be
dealt with in accordance with procedure
established to hold a document as forged
and fabricated.

(iii) If Matriculation Certificate is
not available or in its absence alone can
resort be taken to determination on basis of
date of birth certificate from school first
attended (Rule 3 (a) (ii) of the Rules 2007.)

(iv) If date of birth certificate is
not available or is disbelieved if found to
be
forged
and
fabricated
after
the
adjudication and considering the evidence
and following the procedure for holding the
document as forged and fabricated.

(v) Resort can be taken to the
birth certificate given by the corporation or
a municipal authority.
22 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(vi) If the said birth certificate
given by the corporation or a municipal
authority is not available or is held to be
forged and fabricated and not worthy of
reliance after conducting the enquiry on the
basis of evidences adduced, resort can be
taken to Clause 12 (3) (b) of the Rules
2007."

12. Per contra, learned A.G.A.
submitted that there is no infirmity or
illegality in the impugned order passed by
the learned court below, whereby the
accused-revisionist
has
been
declared
major and the order passed by Juvenile
Justice Board, Maharajganj in regard to his
juvenility has been set-aside.

13. He further submitted that the
Investigating Officer had not initiated any
action to get the accused declared as
juvenile
by
moving
appropriate
proceedings. The victim was aged about 14
years at relevant time and student of Class
IX. The date of birth of the revisionist is
mentioned as 07.02.1995 in school records
of Primary School, Harpur Pakadi Ghivhan
and same has been proved by the informant
before Juvenile Justice Board by producing
headmaster of said school as court witness
at the instance of the first informant who
proved this case on the basis of school
records and stated that the revisionist
studied in his school, where his date of
birth is recorded as 07.02.1995. The
deponent
Ramakant,
father
of
the
revisionist appeared as witness before the
Juvenile Justice Board and stated that date
of birth of his son as 24.09.1997, and in
support of this statement he produced High
School Marksheet and Transfer Certificate
of the revisionist. Inasmuch as in affidavit
filed before this court in some other
proceedings it is stated by the revisionist in
affidavit that he is aged about 22 years.
Therefore, the impugned order need no
warrant any interference on the basis of his
own admission before this Court in other
proceedings arising out of said offence and
date of birth recorded in school first
attended by the revisionist.

14. In chargesheet filed against
revisionist for offence under Sections
363,366 and 376 of I.P.C. and Section 3/4
of POCSO Act by the Investigating Officer,
his age is mentioned as around 18 years.
This chargesheet has been filed on
06.06.2014, whereas the date of offence is
mentioned 01.02.2014 in FIR, therefore the
chargesheet has been filed after four
months of the incident.

15. Learned appellate court has setaside the order passed by learned Juvenile
Justice Board dated 03.04.2015, whereby
the revisionist has been declared juvenile
on the ground that his date of birth is
mentioned as 17.02.1995 in records of
school first attended by him and the same
has been proved by evidence of the
headmaster of the said school, which is a
Government Primary School.

16. The accused has also stated his
age about 24 years in a Writ Petition filed
in the year 2014. Therefore, the date of
birth mentioned in High School marksheet
of the 2012 becomes perfectly doubtful,
and learned appellate court has declared the
accused as major on the date of offence i.e.
01.02.2014, and sent back the record to the
Juvenile Justice Board for necessary action.

17. Learned appellate court has placed
reliance upon a judgment of the Apex Court
in Parag Bhati (Juvenile) Through Legal
Guardian-Mother Smt. Rajni Bhati Vs.
State of U.P. and another (2016) 12 SCC
744, the Hon'ble Apex Court decided an
3 All. Akhilesh Vs. The State of U.P. & Anr.
23
appeal directed against the final judgment
and order passed by the leaned Single
Judge of this Court, whereby the revision
filed by the appellant claimed to be juvenile
against the judgments of Juvenile Justice
Board and Additional Sessions Judge,
Meerut rejecting his claim of juvenility.
The accused was charged for the offence
under Sections 302, 394, 504 and 506 of
IPC, he was arrested and produced before
the Juvenile Court and was remanded and
kept in juvenile home. The Juvenile Justice
Board after considering the evidence on
record came to the conclusion that the date
of birth as recorded in various schools
certificate submitted by the father of the
accused-appellant on his behalf, is doubtful
and the juvenile was referred to the
Medical Board for determination of his age.
The Chief Medical Officer, Meerut on
23.08.2011 opined that the age of the appellantaccused is about 19 years.

18. The chargesheet in above case was
filed before The Juvenile Justice Board, Meerut.
The Board placing reliance on the opinion of
the Medical Board, vide order dated 07.09.2011
held that appellant-accused is major and
accordingly transferred the case before the
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gautam Buddha
Nagar. Aggrieved by the order dated 07.09.2011
the appellant-accused preferred an appeal
before the court of District and Sessions Judge,
Meerut. Learned Additional Session Judge,
Meerut dismissed that appeal filed by the
appellant-accused vide order dated 04.10.2011.
Being aggrieved by the orders dated 07.09.2011
and 04.10.2011 passed by the court below the
appellant-accused preferred revision before the
High Court, however, the same was dismissed
vide order dated 24.05.2013, which was under
challenged before the Apex Court.

19. The point for determination before
the Apex Court was whether on the facts
and circumstances of the present case when
the date of birth mentioned in the
Matriculation Certificate is doubtful, the
ossification test can be the last resort of
proof of juvenility of the accused. The
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Parag
Bhati Vs. State of U.P. and another (Supra)
discussed the statutory provisions of
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of
Children) Act, (2000) and Rule 12 of
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of
Children) Rules, (2007) and some case
laws such as Ashwani Kumar Saxena Vs.
State of M.P. (2012) 9 SCC 750, Hari
Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan and another
(2009) 13 SCC 211, Om Prakash Vs.
State of Rajasthan and another (2012) 5
SC 201 and Abuzar Hossain alias Gulab
Hossain Vs. State of West Bengal (2012)
10 SCC 489 and held as under:-

"24. While considering a similar
question, this Court in Ashwani Kumar
(supra) held as under:-

"32.
"Age
determination
inquiry" contemplated under Section 7-A of
the Act read with 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 needs to 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
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 question of
obtaining medical opinion from a duly
constituted Medical Board arises only if the
abovementioned
documents
are
24 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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.

33. Once the court, following the
above mentioned procedures, passes an
order, that order shall be the conclusive
proof of the age as regards such child or
juvenile in conflict with law. It has been
made clear in sub-rule (5) of Rule 12 that
no further inquiry shall be conducted by the
court or the Board after examining and
obtaining the certificate or any other
documentary proof after referring to subrule (3) of Rule 12. Further, Section 49 of
the JJ Act also draws a presumption of the
age of the juvenility on its determination.

34. Age determination inquiry
contemplated under the JJ Act and the
2007 Rules has nothing to do with an
enquiry under other legislations, like entry
in service, retirement, promotion, etc. There
may be situations where the entry made in
the matriculation or equivalent certificates,
date of birth certificate from the school first
attended and even the birth certificate
given by a corporation or a municipal
authority or a panchayat may not be
correct. But court, Juvenile Justice Board
or a committee functioning under the JJ Act
is not expected to conduct such a roving
enquiry and to go behind those certificates
to examine the correctness of those
documents, kept during the normal course
of business. Only in cases where those
documents or certificates are found to be
fabricated or manipulated, the court, the
Juvenile Justice Board or the committee
need to go for medical report for age
determination.

25) In Abuzar Hossain (supra),
wherein a three-Judge Bench of this Court
has already summarized the position
regarding what materials would prima
facie satisfy the court and/or are sufficient
for discharging the initial burden cannot be
catalogued nor can it be laid down as to
what weight should be given to a specific
piece of evidence which may be sufficient to
raise presumption of juvenility but the
documents referred to in Rules 12(3)(a)(i)
to (iii) shall definitely be sufficient for
prima facie satisfaction of the court about
the age of the delinquent necessitating
further enquiry under Rule 12. The
credibility and/or acceptability of the
documents would depend on the facts and
circumstances of each case and no hardand-fast rule can be prescribed that they
must be prima facie accepted or rejected
and if such documents prima facie inspire
confidence of the court, the court may act
upon such documents for the purposes of
Section 7-A and order an enquiry for
determination of the age of the appellant.

26) It is no doubt true that if there
is a clear and unambiguous case in favour
of the juvenile accused that he was a minor
below the age of 18 years on the date of the
incident and the documentary evidence at
least prima facie proves the same, he would
be entitled to the special protection under
the JJ Act. But when an accused commits a
grave and heinous offence and thereafter
attempts to take statutory shelter under the
guise of being a minor, a casual or cavalier
approach while recording as to whether an
accused is a juvenile or not cannot be
permitted as the courts are enjoined upon
to perform their duties with the object of
protecting the confidence of common man
in the institution entrusted with the
administration of justice.

27) The benefit of the principle of
benevolent legislation attached to the JJ
Act would thus apply to only such cases
wherein the accused is held to be a juvenile
on the basis of at least prima facie evidence
3 All. Akhilesh Vs. The State of U.P. & Anr.
25
regarding his minority as the benefit of the
possibilities of two views in regard to the
age of the alleged accused who is involved
in grave and serious offence which he
committed and gave effect to it in a wellplanned manner reflecting his maturity of
mind rather than innocence indicating that
his plea of juvenility is more in the nature
of a shield to dodge or dupe the arms of
law, cannot be allowed to come to his
rescue.

28) 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, 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
(supra), an enquiry for determination of the
age of the accused is permissible which has
been done in the present case.

29) In view of the foregoing
discussion, we do not find any illegality in
the orders passed by the Board and the
Court of Sessions and also of the High
Court which requires our interference."

20. The Hon'ble Apex Court in
Rajendra
Chand
Vs.
State
of
Chattisgarh and others (2002) 2 SCC 287
held that while dealing with question of
determination of the age of the accused for
the purpose of finding out whether he is a
juvenile or not, a hyper-technical approach
should not be adopted while appreciating
the evidence adduced on behalf of the
accused in support of the plea that he was a
juvenile and if two views may be possible
on the said evidence, the court should lean
in favour of holding the accused to be a
juvenile in borderline cases.

21. As the matter relates to the year
2014, Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection
of Children) Act, 2000 will be applicable in
the case. Model Central Rules i.e. Juvenile
Justice (Care and Protection of Children)
Rules, 2007. Rule 12(3) of Rules 2007
reads as under:-

"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,
26 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
clause (b) shall be the conclusive proof of
the age as regards such child or Ihe
juvenile in conflict with law."

22. In present case there is variation
in date of births of the accused/appellant
mentioned in school records of Janta
Uchchatar Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Harpur
Pakdi,District Maharajganj, from where he
passed his High School examination in the
year 2012 as well as Basic Primary School,
Harpur Pakadi Ghivhan where he received
primary education. In former his date of
birth is mentioned as 24.09.1997, on which
reliance has been placed on Juvenile Justice
Board, wherein latter is date of birth is
mentioned as 07.02.1995, whereon reliance
has been placed on by appellate court.
However, the parties have not specifically
taken stand that the date of birth mentioned
in school record relied by other side is fake
or forged. The simple issue in this case is
that two date of births are mentioned in
regard to the revisionist who has claimed to
be juvenile on the date of alleged offence.
In his two school records, the school from
which he passed High School examination
as well as the school which is said to be
first attended by him. The date of birth
mentioned in both the schools although
different, yet is proved by evidence of
officials of respective schools by producing
the relevant records in this regard.

23. In this context the provisions of
Rule 12(3) of Juvenile Justice (Care and
Protection
of
Children)
Rules,
2007
become relevant, which provides that if
Matriculation Certificate is available, only
the same is to be relied upon for
determination of age concerning the child
juvenile.

24. This Court in Meghraj Sharma
vs State Of U.P. And Anr. (supra) held
that Matriculation Certificate can be
disbelieved only if it is forged or fabricated
which has to be adjudicated after enquiry
and sufficient evidence to be dealt with in
accordance with procedure established to
hold a document as forged and fabricated.
If Matriculation Certificate is not available
or in its absence alone can resort be taken
to determine the age on basis of date of
birth certificate from school first attended
and in absence of the documents mentioned
in Clause (a) of Rule 3 of the Rules 2007,
only the medical opinion will be sought
from a duly constituted medical board,
which would declare the age of juvenile a
child.

25. In the case in hand, according to
date of birth mentioned in High School
examination record of the revisionist his
age was calculated by Juvenile Justice
Board as 16 years 4 months and 7 days on
the date of alleged offence i.e. 24.09.1997.
Whereas on the basis of date of birth
mentioned in primary school records of the
revisionist, which is 17.02.1995, the
appellate court has held that he was more
than 18 years of age, and on the basis of
said documents as well as his own
admission made before the High Court in
writ petition has held him major on the date
of offence.

26. The learned appellate court has
lost sight of the fact that admission of a
person claiming himself to be juvenile
before
any
judicial
proceedings
or
collateral proceedings arising out of same
offence is not illustrated, as a ground for
determination of age of a person claiming
himself to be a juvenile neither under the
Act of 2000 nor Model Central Rules
framed in the year 2007. In absence of any
finding of court's below that the date of
birth mentioned in High School record of
3 All. Akhilesh Vs. The State of U.P. & Anr.
27
the revisionist are forged, his date of birth
recorded in school first attended cannot be
resorted to for determination of the age of
the revisionist. Inasmuch as, the medical
determination of age of the revisionist,
learned Chief Medical Officer has opined
in his report dated 25.03.2015 that he
was around 18 years of age on the basis
of physical appearance as well as the
ossification
test
conducted
by
radiologist.

27. Thus, according to medical age
determination report, which has been
filed after one year of the incident, the
revisionist should be held to be juvenile
and below the age of 18 years. In Rule
12(3) of Rules 2007, it is provided that
in absence of the documents mentioned
in Clause (a) of Medical Board will
declare the age of juvenile a child. In
case of exact assessment of the age it
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. Thus,
according to this sub-rule, the age of
the revisionist can be held as around 17
years, on the date of alleged incident
which is in consonance with his date of
birth recorded in his High School
Examination Marksheet.

28. There is consistency and
conformity
between
the
age
determination report of the revisionist
issued by the Chief Medical Officer and
his date of birth is mentioned in his
High School records and both of these
strongly suggests towards juvenility of
the revisionist on the date of alleged
incident. According to the above rules,
the date of birth of the revisionist
mentioned in his High School records
will have privacy over his date of birth
mentioned in records of school of first
attended.

29. On the basis of foregoing
discussions,
this
Court
is
of
the
considered opinion that the approach of
Juvenile Justice Board while declaring
the revisionist as juvenile on the basis
of his medical age determination report
as well as his date of birth mentioned in
High School records of the school
concerned is in conformity with the law
laid down under statutory Rules of
2007, as well as various judicial
pronouncements cited and discussed as
above.

30. Learned appellate court has
committed legal error while settingaside the finding and order of Juvenile
Justice
Board
dated
03.04.2015,
declaring the revisionist as major on the
basis of his date of birth mentioned in
the records of school first attended as
well as his admission in affidavit filed
before this Court in support of Civil
Misc. Writ Petition No.9053 of 2014
(Smt. Radhika and others Vs. State of
U.P.).

31. Consequently, the impugned
judgment and order passed by learned
Session Judge is set-aside and the order
dated 01.02.2014 passed by Juvenile
Justice Board declaring the revisionist
as juvenile is affirmed. Revision stands
allowed, accordingly.

32. Let the copy of this judgment
be certified to Juvenile Justice Board
concerned to proceed with the matter
accordingly.
28 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
----------
(2024) 3 ILRA 28
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 14.03.2024
BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

Criminal Revision No. 228 of 2024

Km. Ruchi Tripathi ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Santosh Srivastava

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A.

Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 - Sections 397, 401, 227 & 228 -
Revision
against
order
dated
01.02.2022
rejecting discharge application in Sessions Trial
No. 2567 of 2022 under Section 306 IPC - Held,
revisionist's application for discharge rightly
rejected as suicide note and video message by
deceased categorically implicated revisionist for
abetting suicide - Prima facie case established
based on material indicating revisionist's alleged
threats and abusive conduct - Court not
required to delve into deep inquiry at discharge
stage, only to ascertain if sufficient ground
exists for proceeding - No error in trial court's
order. (Para 19-21)
Revision dismissed at admission stage.

List of Cases Cited:

1. Naresh Kumar Vs St. of Har., Criminal Appeal
No. 1722 of 2010, decided on 22.02.2024

2. Kumar @ Shiva Kumar Vs St. of Karn.,
Criminal Appeal No. 1427 of 2011, decided on
01.03.2024

3. Stree Atyachar Virodhi Parishad Vs Dilip
Nathumal Chordia, (1989) 1 SCC 715

4. Rajbir Singh Vs St. of U.P., (2006) 4 SCC 51
5. Chitresh Kumar Chopra Vs St. (NCT of Delhi),
(2009) 16 SCC 605

6. Amit Kapoor Vs Ramesh Chander, (2012) 9
SCC 460

7. St. of Maharashtra Vs Som Nath Thapa,
(1996) 4 SCC 659

8. St. of M.P. Vs Deepak, (2019) 13 SCC 62

9. P. Vijayan Vs St. of Kerala, (2010) 2 SCC 398

10. Asmathunnisa Vs St. of A.P., (2011) 11 SCC
259

(Delivered by Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,
J.)

1. Heard Sri Santosh Srivastava
Advocate, the learned counsel for the
revisionist, Sri Anant Pratap Singh, the
learned Additional Government Advocate
and Ms. Neetu Shukla, the learned counsel
for the opposite party No.2 and perused the
record.

2. By means of the instant revision
filed under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. the
revisionist has assailed the validity of the
order dated 01.02.2022 passed by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge/F.T.C.-1,
Lucknow in Sessions Trial No.2567 of
2022 arising out of Case Crime No.79 of
2018 under Section 306 IPC, Police Station
Gazipur, Lucknow whereby the application
for discharge of the revisionist has been
rejected.

3. The aforesaid case has been
initiated on the basis of an FIR lodged by
opposite party No.2 on 05.02.2018 against
the applicant and her sister, stating that the
complainant's son was in a relationship
with the revisionist. Negotiations for
settlement of the marriage of complainant's
son with some other girl were going on and