# Atul Singh Sengar Revisionist (In Juvenile Jail) v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2020) 2 ILRA 879
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2020-01-21
- **Case number:** Criminal Revision No. 2881 of 2019
- **Bench:** Ram Krishna Gautam
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/atul-singh-sengar-revisionist-in-juvenile-jail-v-state-of-u-p-anr-45739
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Law-Code
of
Criminal
Procedure,1973-Section
397/401
&
Indian Penal Code,1860-Sections 498A,
304-B & Dowry Prohibition Act,1961Section 3/4-rejection-claiming juvenilityjuvenile
justice
Board
determined
juvenile on the basis of high school
certificate-Appellate
court
considered
date of birth of school first attendedmanipulation, overwriting and tampering
in subsequent transfer certificate-elder
brother date of birth and year may not be
less than a year from younger brotherrevisionist claims himself juvenile while
he gets married by saying himself to be
major-revisionist may not blow cold and
hot together at one place-Appellate Court
rightly
appreciated
facts
and
lawrevisionist
was
major-
Hence,
dismissed.(Para 3 to 6)

B.
Provision
for
determing
age,
firstly,High School Certificate, Second
option school first attended,if the same is
not available, birth certificate given by a
corporation or municipal authority or a
panchayat and only in the absence of
above three certificate, age shall be
determined by an ossification test or any
other
medical
age
determination
test.(Para 4)

Criminal Revision dismissed. (E-6)

## Text

2 All. Atul Singh Sengar Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
879
and marginalized sections of society, must
be present when the courts are dealing
with an application of destitute wife or
helpless children and aged and infirm
parents. Social justice adjudication or
social
context
adjudication
requires
application
of
equality
jurisprudence
where the parties to a litigation are
unequally situated in terms of socioeconomic structure and dilution of the
technical procedure often followed in
adversarial system.

45. In view of the above discussion, I
find that the view and approach of the
learned Family Court is completely
justified and legal and there is no material
irregularity or illegality or jurisdictional
error in the impugned judgment and order.
Hence, the revision has got no force and is
liable to be dismissed.

46. The revision is dismissed. Stay,
if any shall stand vacated.

47. The office is directed to send a
copy of this judgment to the learned
Family
Court
for
information
and
necessary compliance.
----------
(2020)02ILR A879

REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 21.01.2020

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAM KRISHNA GAUTAM, J.

Criminal Revision No. 2881 of 2019

Atul Singh Sengar
 ...Revisionist (In Juvenile Jail)
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Sri Vijay Singh Sengar, Sri Ajay Singh
Sengar

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
A.G.A., Sri Rajeev Kumar Saxena

A.
Criminal
Law-Code
of
Criminal
Procedure,1973-Section
397/401
&
Indian Penal Code,1860-Sections 498A,
304-B & Dowry Prohibition Act,1961Section 3/4-rejection-claiming juvenilityjuvenile
justice
Board
determined
juvenile on the basis of high school
certificate-Appellate
court
considered
date of birth of school first attendedmanipulation, overwriting and tampering
in subsequent transfer certificate-elder
brother date of birth and year may not be
less than a year from younger brotherrevisionist claims himself juvenile while
he gets married by saying himself to be
major-revisionist may not blow cold and
hot together at one place-Appellate Court
rightly
appreciated
facts
and
lawrevisionist
was
major-
Hence,
dismissed.(Para 3 to 6)

B.
Provision
for
determing
age,
firstly,High School Certificate, Second
option school first attended,if the same is
not available, birth certificate given by a
corporation or municipal authority or a
panchayat and only in the absence of
above three certificate, age shall be
determined by an ossification test or any
other
medical
age
determination
test.(Para 4)

Criminal Revision dismissed. (E-6)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ram Krishna
Gautam, J.)

1. This Criminal Revision under
Section 397/401 of Code of Criminal
Procedure, has been filed by Atul Singh
Sengar, agaisnt order dated 3.7.2019,
passed by Sessions Judge, Auraiya, in
Criminal Appeal No. 13/2019 (State Vs.
Atul Singh Sengar), arising out of Case
880 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Crime No. 132/2017, under Sections
498A, 304-B I.P.C. and 3/4 of D.P. Act,
P.S. Auraiya, District Auraiya, with a
prayer for setting aside impugned order,
whereby, order of Juvenile Justice Board,
Auraiya, dated 16.4.2019, has been set
aside.

2.

Learned
counsel,
for
the
revisionist, argued that Juvenile Justice
Board,
Auraiya,
vide
order
dated
16.4.2019, determined revisionist accused-
Atul Singh Sengar, juvenile under conflict
with law and it was on the basis of date of
birth entered in matriculation Mark-sheetcum-Certificate, wherein date of birth was
10.8.1999.
This
occurrence
was
of
27.1.2017,
hence,
on
the
date
of
occurrence, revisionist was of age 17
years, 5 months and 17 days, i.e. below 18
years. Hence, was juvenile in conflict with
law. Against this order, an appeal before
Sessions Judge, Auraiya No. 13 of 2019
(State Vs. Atul Singh Sengar) was filed,
wherein, impugned order of Juvenile
Justice Board, Auraiya, was set aside.
Accordingly, appeal was allowed. The
date of birth entered in Basic School, was
taken by learned Appellate Court and on
the basis of it, impugned order was passed.
Whereas, it was a conclusive proof of age,
which was entered in High School
Certificate and it was very well there on
record. Once, the same was there, then no
further school document was to be taken in
consideration. But erroneously another
school record was taken in consideration
and on the basis of it, impugned order was
passed. It was apparently error, on the face
of record, under erroneous exercise of
jurisdiction by Appellate Court. Hence,
this revision with above prayer.

3. Learned AGA as well as learned
counsel for the informant vehemently
opposed. It was argued that school first
attended was Basic School, wherein,
revisionist himself had entered his date of
birth and it was there in its admission
form. This could not be tampered and it
was
10.8.1997.
But
there
was
manipulation, overwriting and tampering
in subsequent transfer certificate, wherein,
date of birth was written as 10.8.1999. The
same was there in alleged Mark-sheetcum-Certificate of High School, wherein,
date of birth was writtten as 10.8.1999, but
the Board itself during inquiry had
obtained report of Basic Shiksha Adhikari
as well as Block Organiser, wherein, this
fact was cogently pressed that there is
tampering
with
manipulation
in
subsequent
papers
including
scholar
register regarding date of birth of accused
Atul Singh Sengar, but a tampering could
not be there in the admission form, which
was filled by applicant-revisionist himself
and therein date of birth was 10.8.1997.
The same was further been substantiated
and fortified by the date of birth entered
for younger brother, which is of 1998.
Meaning thereby, elder brother may not be
of 1999, when younger brother is of 1998.
This itself shows the manipulation and
false averment by accused. Beside this,
marriage was performed and a marriage by
juvenile is not permissible under law. At
that time, marriage was solemnized by
mentioning Atul Singh Sengar as major.
Subsequently, it is being said that he was
juvenile. Revisionist may not blow cold
and hot together at one place, he said
himself to be major and then after gets
married. Subsequently, he claimed himself
to be juvenile. Appellate Court has rightly
appreciated facts and law and impugned
order has been passed in accordance with
material placed on record. There is neither
any illegality or apparent error on face of
record or mis-exercise of jurisdiction.
2 All. Atul Singh Sengar Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
881
Hence, this revision merits dismissal. Be
dismissed, accordingly.

4. Having heard learned counsels for
both sides and gone through order of
Juvenile Justice Board, Auraiya as well as
of Appellate Court of Sessions Judge,
Auraiya, it is apparent that Sessions Judge,
has not added something from his side,
rather, whatever is there on record, had
been taken by him in his judicial decision
making. The material on record is the oral
testimony of Mahendra Singh, under who
signature, school leaving certificate was
issued and he had categorically said before
Court that it was with no signature of him.
Rather, it was a manipulated, fabricated
and tampered documents. The entry of
date of birth of 10.8.1999 in scholar
register is also fabricated with overwriting,
as was filed as Exhibit Kha, before Board.
The admission form of revisionist is there
and it is of no manipulation or overwriting,
therein, date of birth is 10.8.1997. This
date of birth has been duly verified by
public servant, examined by Board that
while getting admission in school first
attended, date of birth was said and
accepted to be of 10.8.1997 and this is the
date of birth in school first attended and
was duly verified by Basic Shiksha
Adhikari, on record. Hence, prior to this
Act
of
Juvenile
Justice
(Care
and
Protection of Children) Act, 2015, the
situation of determination of age was
otherwise. Therein, the provision was that
firstly High School Certificate is to be
taken and the date of birth entered, therein
is to be taken for consideration. In case of
failure, the second option was of school
first attended, if the same is not available,
then date of birth entered in local bodies'
register or gram sabha register was to be
taken and if all these three categories were
not available, then the option was of
medical age determination by Medical
Board. But in the new Act of 2015 and
Rules made therein, Section 94 of Act
provides
that
presumption
and
determination of age, wherein, sub-Section
2 provides :

(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 muncipal 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.

5. Meaning thereby, date of birth
certificate from the school or matriculation
or
equivalent
certificate
from
the
concerned examination Board, if available;
and in the absence thereof---- Meaning
thereby, school first attended has been
kept prior to matriculation certificate.
Meaning thereby, now there is no
preference of High School Certificate and
date of birth entered in it, rather, all
882 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
education certificates have been kept at par
and school first attended comes first.
Hence, in the present case, which was of
year 2017 i.e. after enforcement of above
Rules, the school first attended was with
priority.
The
citations
discussed
by
Juvenile Justice Justice Board, Auraiya,
relates with prior situations, whereas, the
present case is to be governed by new Act
and Rules made therein, as above. The
school first attended is with date of birth
10.8.1997 and that is to be taken as a date
of birth, for consideration of juvenility of
accused Atul Singh Sengar. On the basis
of it, learned Appellate Court of Sessions
Judge, Auraiya, has passed impugned
order that on the date of occurrence,
present revisionist was not juvenile in
conflict with law. Rather, he was major.
This determination of learned Appellate
Court is on the basis of material placed on
record
and
in
other
attending
circumstances, like younger brother may
not be elder to elder brother and juvenile
may not get married against the age of
marriage under majority Act. Under all
above
facts
and
circumstances,
this
revision merits its dismissal.

6. Dismissed, as such.
----------
(2020)02ILR A882

REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 02.12.2019

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE PRADEEP KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA, J.

Criminal Revision No. 3516 of 2005

Daya Ram & Ors. ...Revisionists (In Jail)
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Revisioniss:
Sri S.K. Tiwari

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
A.G.A.

A.
Criminal
Law-Code
of
Criminal
Procedure,1973-Sections397/401,Section 360 & Indian Penal
Code,1860-Sections
147,
323/149,325/149
&
Probation
of
Offenders Act,1958-Section 3 & 4-lower
court didnot pay heed to the provisions
u/s 3 & 4 of Probation of Offenders Act
and Section 360 Cr.P.C. while passing
sentences in trivial issues occurred in fit
of anger between the parties-lower court
failed to determine who was aggressor
on technical ground in the instant casehowever, power is granted to court to
release certain offenders on probation of
good conduct but the aforesaid beneficial
provision has been lost sight of which is
provided u/s 3 & 4 Probation of Offenders
Act and section 360,361 of Cr.P.C.-if it is
a fit case in which the accused should be
released on probation by directing them
to execute bond of one year for good
behaviour-Held-instead of sending the
revisionists to jail, they shall get benefit
of Section 4 of Probation of Offenders
Act.(Para 5 to 18)

Criminal Revision disposed of.(E-6)

List of Cases Cited:-

1. Subhash Chand & Ors. Vs. St. Of U.P. {2015
Law Suit (All) 1343}

2. St. Of Mah. Vs. Jagmohan Singh Kuldip
Singh Anand & Ors.,(2004) 7 SCC 659

3. Jagat Pal Singh & Ors. Vs. St. Of Haryana,
AIR (2000) SC 3622

4. Soney Lal Pasi Vs. St. Of U.P., Cr.Rev. No.
2820 of 2003

(Delivered by Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar
Srivastava, J).)