# Juvenile X Revisionist v. State of U.P. & Anr - **Citation:** (2026) 4 ILRA 1226 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2026-04-01 - **Case number:** Criminal Revision No. 5278 of 2025 - **Bench:** Jai Prakash Tiwari - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/juvenile-x-revisionist-v-state-of-u-p-anr-54381 - **Pages:** 7 ## Text 1226 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES Further the complainant also admitted that the accused never borrowed the amount of Rs. 3,55,000/- from her. Most importantly, the complainant deposed before the trial court that the Tractor is still with her, therefore, it becomes crystal clear that the transaction of sale of vehicle between the parties failed for variety of reasons and the presumption attached to the cheque in question that it was issued for discharge of legal liability or enforceable debt stands sufficiently rebutted. 23. Admission is the best evidence which can be used against a party, and surprisingly, the trial court notices the vital admissions suffered by the complainant, but still it proceeded to convict the accused on the ground that the cheque was issued by the accused which belonged to his account. Further, this Court finds that the appellate court has also failed to exercise the jurisdiction in a judicious manner, while affirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 10.09.2025 passed by the trial court. The approach adopted by the trial court as well as the appellate court in convicting the petitioner in the facts and circumstances of the case is erroneous in law, and is result of misreading of evidence as well as law on the subject. 24. As a result, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the impugned judgment dated 15.12.2025 passed by the appellate court affirming the judgment dated 10.09.2025 passed by the trial court suffers from grave illegality and impropriety, therefore, interference is warranted by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. 25. Resultantly, the revision petition succeeds and the impugned judgment dated 10.09.2025 passed in Complaint Case No. 1771 of 2021 as well as order dated 15.12.2025 in Criminal Appeal No. 43 of 2025 are set aside and petitioner-Surendra Singh is acquitted in the Complaint Case No. 1771 of 2021 titled Smt. Shanti Devi versus Surendra Singh. ---------- (2026) 4 ILRA 1226 REVISIONAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 01.04.2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE JAI PRAKASH TIWARI, J. Criminal Revision No. 5278 of 2025 Juvenile X ...Revisionist Versus State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties Issue for Consideration Issue pertains to whether the Juvenile Justice Board was justified in invoking s. 15 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 and referring the revisionist for trial as an adult when the medical opinion assessed his age as "about 16 years" and he had not completed 16 years of age on the date of alleged offence. Headnotes 4 All. Juvenile X Vs. State of U.P. & Anr. 1227 Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 - ss. 15, 18 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - ss. - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 452, 302, 506 - About 16 years - Determination of age - Preliminary assessment in heinous offences - Applicability - Word "about" used in age determination not synonymous with "completed" - Interpretation of - An FIR was lodged against the revisionist and others in Case Crime No. 134 of 2017 under various ss. of IPC, alleging that the accused persons allegedly abused certain women and assaulted the complainant's father when he objected and subsequently attacked him with a knife while he was sleeping, resulting in his death - During the proceedings, the revisionist was declared a juvenile by Juvenile Justice Board on the basis of a medical age determination report assessing his age to be about 16 years - Despite the absence of any significant adverse material in District Probation Officer's report, the Juvenile Justice Board conducted a preliminary assessment u/s 15 of Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 and referred the matter to Children's Court for trial as an adult - Aggrieved thereby, the revisionist challenged the orders of Juvenile Justice Board and Children's Court, contending that on the date of occurrence he was approximately 15 years and 6 months old and, therefore, s. 15 of Act was inapplicable to him. Held: There is no settled legal principle that specifically deals with the interpretation of term "about," which is commonly used by courts in determining age - When the exact age of child is not known and there is no documentary evidence available, a medical examination is conducted to determine age as per mandate of s. 94(2)(iii) of JJ Act,2015 - However, such medical opinion does not provide an exact age and is only an estimate on the basis of any ossification test or any other latest medical age determination test - While considering the medical report given by CMO, the JJ Board should interpret it in a manner that benefits the child and serves the interests of justice - The Board should not simply adopt the age mentioned in report without proper consideration and application of mind - The JJ Board ought to have given benefit of a margin of error in age determination, as recognized by judicial precedents - Although, the order regarding the determination of age has not been challenged - Only the preliminary assessment order has been challenged - The Board conducted a preliminary assessment on the basis that the child in conflict with law was approximately 16 years of age, whereas u/s 15 of J.J. Act, a preliminary assessment requires the child's age to be 16 years or more as of date of incident - Thus, "about" could not be construed as "completion" provided u/s 15 of J.J. Act, 2015 - Accordingly, impugned orders set aside, thus, criminal revision allowed - Remanded back. [Paras 12, 13, 14, 16, 17] (E-13) Case Law Cited Raju v. State (GNCT of Delhi) reported in 2025 SCC OnLine Del 6361; Vinod Katara v. State of M.P., reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 1204 - referred to Books and Periodicals Cited Black's Law Dictionary - referred to List of Acts Indian Penal Code, 1860; Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 List of Keywords Criminal Revision; Declared juvenile; Indian Penal Code, 1860; Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015; Child in conflict with law; About 16 years; Preliminary assessment; Heinous offence; Mental and physical capacity; Consequences of offence and circumstances; Jurisdiction of Juvenile Justice Board; Adult; Age determination; Benefit of doubt; Medical examination; Medical report; Documentary evidence; Ossification test; Medical opinion; Margin of error; Benefits the child and serves the interests of justice; About could not be construed as completion; Date of incident; Revision allowed; Remanded back. Case Arising From ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Criminal Revision No. - 5278 of 2025 1228 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES From the Judgment and Order dated 16.07.2024 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO), Court No. 2, Ghaziabad in Criminal Case No. 65 of 2018 and also Order dated 20.03.2018 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Ghaziabad in Case No. 76 of 2017 arising out of Case Crime No. 134 of 2017, Police Station Shahibabad, Ghaziabad. Appearances for Parties Advs. for the Revisionist(s): Gaurav Tiwari, Sanjay Chaturvedi Advs. for the Opposite Party(s): G.A., Gaurav Singh Tomar, Inder Pal Singh Tomar (Delivered by Hon'ble Jai Prakash Tiwari, J.) 1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2, as well as Sri Ashutosh Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the entire material available on record. 2. This criminal revision has been filed under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 for setting aside the judgment and order dated 16.07.2024 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO), Court No. 2, Ghaziabad in Criminal Case No. 65 of 2018 (State vs. Anash), and order dated 20.03.2018 passed by the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Ghaziabad in Case No. 76 of 2017 (State vs. Anash), arising out of Case Crime No. 134 of 2017, under Sections 452, 302, 506 IPC, Police Station Shahibabad, District Ghaziabad. 3. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the present criminal revision arises out of an FIR dated 26.01.2017 lodged by opposite party no. 2 against the revisionist and others, registered as Case Crime No. 134 of 2017 under Sections 452, 302, and 506 I.P.C. at Police Station Sahibabad, District Ghaziabad. As per the prosecution case, on 21.01.2017 at about 9:00 P.M., the accused persons allegedly abused certain women and assaulted the complainant?s father when he objected. Thereafter, in the intervening night of 25/26.01.2017 at about 1:30 A.M., the said person was allegedly attacked with a knife while sleeping, resulting in his death. 4. It is submitted that the revisionist was declared a juvenile by the Juvenile Justice Board, Ghaziabad, vide order dated 26.09.2017 on the basis of the medical report of the Chief Medical Officer dated 03.06.2017, which assessed his age to be about 16 years on that date. Accordingly, on the date of the incident, the revisionist was approximately 15 years and 6 months old and, therefore, below 16 years of age. Learned counsel contends that the District Probation Officer?s report dated 21.11.2017 does not disclose any adverse material or criminal antecedents against the revisionist, except a vague apprehension regarding bad company. 5. Despite this, the Juvenile Justice Board, by order dated 20.03.2018, referred the matter to the Children's Court for trial of the revisionist as an adult. It is argued that such referral is contrary to Section 15 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, which applies only to children aged 16 years or above on the date of commission of the offence. Since the revisionist was below 16 years, the preliminary assessment and mental status examination were 4 All. Juvenile X Vs. State of U.P. & Anr. 1229 without jurisdiction and contrary to law. It is further submitted that the learned trial court wrongly rejected the application dated 17.01.2023 and arbitrarily closed the opportunity to cross-examine Dr. Saket Nath Tiwari, thereby causing prejudice to the revisionist. 6. Learned counsel further submits that the mental status examination report is neither conclusive nor sufficient to justify trial of the revisionist as an adult. Since Section 15 itself was inapplicable, the consequential provisions of Section 18 of the Act also could not have been invoked. The impugned orders are stated to be based on conjectures, unsupported by evidence, and contrary to the scheme and provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act. It is lastly submitted that the revisionist has already undergone the maximum period of three years contemplated under the Act, and therefore continuation of the proceedings is wholly unjustified. Accordingly, the impugned orders passed by the Juvenile Justice Board and the learned trial court are liable to be set aside. 7. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the revisionist has placed reliance upon the judgment of High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in the case of Raju vs. State (GNCT of Delhi) reported in 2025 SCC OnLine Del 6361. 8. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the revisionist and has submitted that the judgment and order of the courts concerned are in accordance with law. 9. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The core of this revision rests on the age of the accused. A report from the Chief Medical Officer dated 03.06.2017, determined the revisionist was about 16 years old at that time. Consequently, the Juvenile Justice Board, Ghaziabad determined the age of child in conflict with law about 16 years declared him a juvenile on 26.09.2017. Crucially, the learned counsel for the revisionist argues that on the actual date of the incident 26.01.2017, the revisionist was approximately 15 years and 6 months old. 10. The learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the revisionist has been wrongly assessed under Section 15 of the JJ Act. This provision applies only when a child in conflict with law has completed the 16 years of age or above. 11. Here, it would be relevant to go through the opening line of Section 15, which clearly states: "In case of a heinous offence alleged to have been committed by a child, who has completed or is above the age of sixteen year". This makes it clear that the child must have completed 16 years of age." In the present case, the age of the revisionist has been recorded as "about 16 years." As per Black's Law Dictionary- "The word "about" is generally construed to mean "approximately", "nearly", or "close to" a specific amount, time, or quantity" 1230 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES The word "about" is generally understood to mean something that is not exact but approximate. Therefore, it indicates that the revisionist has not yet completed 16 years of age. 12. The Court, while adjudicating the present judgment, has dealt with the following two issues: Firstly, the issue that arises for consideration is whether the terms "completed" and "about" are synonymous with each other. The words ?completion? and ?about? are not synonymous in legal interpretation, as each conveys a distinct meaning and legal effect. The term "completion"denotes the finalization, fulfillment, or full execution of an act or obligation. In contrast, the word "about" is ordinarily used to indicate approximation, relation, or reference to a subject matter, without implying finality or conclusiveness. Under principles of statutory and contractual interpretation, courts generally assign words their ordinary and contextual meanings unless expressly defined otherwise. Therefore, treating ?completion? and ?about? as synonymous would be legally unsustainable, as such interpretation may alter the objective of the act and create ambiguity in the construction of the statute. The JJ Board failed to properly consider the use of the word "about 16 years" and incorrectly treated the revisionist as having completed 16 years, thereby wrongly declaring him as an adult. On the bare perusal of Section 15 of the JJ Act, the revisionist was not eligible for assessment under this provision. Section 15 of the JJ Act, 2015 reads as under:- Section 15. Preliminary assessment into heinous offences by Board. (1) In case of a heinous offence alleged to have been committed by a child, who has completed or is above the age of sixteen years, the Board shall conduct a preliminary assessment with regard to his mental and physical capacity to commit such offence, ability to understand the consequences of the offence and the circumstances in which he allegedly committed the offence and may pass an order in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (3) of section 18: Provided that for such an assessment, the Board may take the assistance of experiences psychologists or psycho-social workers or other experts. Explanation. For the purposes of this section, it is clarified that preliminary assessment not a trial but is to assess the capacity of such child to commit and understand the consequence of the alleged offence. (2) Where the Board is satisfied on preliminary assessment that the matter should be disposed of by the Board, then the Board shall follow the procedure, as far as may be, for trial in summons case under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974): Provided that the order of the Board to dispose of the matter shall be appealable under sub-section (2) of section 101: 4 All. Juvenile X Vs. State of U.P. & Anr. 1231 Provided further that the assessment under this section shall be completed within the period specified in section 14. Secondly, the issue that arises for consideration is whether a child in conflict with law, who has neither attained nor completed the age of 16 years, can be subjected to an assessment under Section 15 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015. There is no settled legal principle that specifically deals with the interpretation of the term "about," which is commonly used by courts in determining age. When the exact age of the child is not known and there is no documentary evidence available, a medical examination is conducted to determine the age as per mandate of section 94(2)(iii) of the JJ Act,2015. However, such medical opinion does not provide an exact age and is only an estimate on the basis of any ossification test or any other latest medical age determination test. 13. Therefore, while considering the medical report given by the CMO, the JJ Board should interpret it in a manner that benefits the child and serves the interests of justice. The Board should not simply adopt the age mentioned in the report without proper consideration and application of mind. 14. Further, the JJ Board ought to have given the benefit of a margin of error in age determination, as recognized by judicial precedents. Reference may be made to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vinod Katara Vs. State of M.P., reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 1204, wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court held: "60. The bone ossification test is not an exact science that can provide us with the exact age of the person. As discussed above, the individual characteristics such as the growth rate of bones and skeletal structures can affect the accuracy of this method. This Court has observed in Ram Suresh Singh v. Prabhat Singh, (2009) 6 SCC 681: (2010) 2 SCC (Cri) 1194, and Jyoti Prakash Rai v. State of Bihar. (2008) 15 SCC 223: (2009) 3 SCC (Cri) 796, that the ossification test is not conclusive for age determination because it does not reveal the exact age of the person, but the radiological examination leaves a margin of two years on either side of the age range as prescribed by the test irrespective of whether the ossification text of multiple joints is conducted. The courts in India have accepted the fact that after the age of thirty years the ossification test cannot be relied upon for age determination. It is trite that the standard of proof for the determination of age is the degree of probability and not proof beyond reasonable doubt". 15. In view of the above, the revisionist should have been given the benefit of this margin, and the assessment under Section 15 of the JJ Act was not justified. 16. Although, the order regarding the determination of age has not been challenged in this revision. Only the preliminary assessment order has been challenged. The Board conducted a preliminary assessment under Section 15 of the Act on the basis that the child in conflict with law 1232 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES was approximately 16 years of age,whereas under Section 15 of the J.J. Act, a preliminary assessment requires the child's age to be 16 years or more as of the date of incident. 17. From the above discussion and in the considered opinion of this Court, "about" could not be construed as "completion" provided under Section 15 of the J.J. Act, 2015. 18. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the impugned order dated 20.03.2018 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Ghaziabad and the order dated 16.07.2024 passed by the learned trial court cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. 19. Accordingly,the criminal revision is allowed. 20. The impugned judgment and order dated 16.07.2024 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO), Court No. 2, Ghaziabad and the order dated 20.03.2018 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Ghaziabad are hereby set aside. 21. It is directed that the case of the revisionist shall be dealt with strictly in accordance with the provisions applicable to a juvenile under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. 22. The matter is remanded back to the Juvenile Justice Board, Ghaziabad to proceed afresh in accordance with law. 23. Before parting with the judgment, I would like to express my appreciation to my Research Associate, Ms. Divya Pandey for her thorough research and assistance to the Court in the instant case. ---------- (2026) 4 ILRA 1232 REVISIONAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 27.04.2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE LAKSHMI KANT SHUKLA, J. Criminal Revision No. 5837 of 2025 Ramraj ...Revisionist Versus State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties Issue for Consideration Issue pertains to whether the Family Court committed illegality and material irregularity in allowing the application u/s 125 Cr.P.C. and awarding maintenance to wife without framing any specific point for determination regarding the allegation of unchastity raised by the husband in his written statement, which was a statutory bar to the wife's claim for maintenance.