# Master X Revisionist v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 9 ILRA 1243
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-09-08
- **Case number:** Criminal Revision No. 922 of 2025
- **Bench:** Saurabh Lavania
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/master-x-revisionist-v-state-of-u-p-ors-53866
- **Pages:** 13

## Headnote

setting aside the order of the Juvenile Justice
Board declaring the accused as a juvenile solely
on the basis of documentary evidence and in
directing ossification test for determination of
age, in view of material discrepancies in school
and birth records, under Section 94 of the
Juvenile
Justice
(Care
and
Protection
of
Children) Act, 2015.

Headnotes
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of
Children) Act, 2015 - s.94; s.102 -
Determination of age - Documentary
evidence - Conflicting school records -
Birth certificate - Parivar register -
Ossification test - When permissible -
Appellate interference - Revisional scope-
Appellate Court order upheld- revision
dismissed.

Held:
Section 94(2) of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015
prescribes a hierarchy of evidence for age
determination. Preference is to be given to
school or matriculation certificates, followed by
birth certificate issued by municipal authority or
panchayat, and only in the absence of reliable
documentary evidence, ossification or medical
age determination test may be directed. [Paras
8-9]

In the present case, the Juvenile Justice Board
relied upon the date of birth recorded as
02.08.2010 in the high school mark-sheet and
parivar register, whereas the school register of
the first attended primary school, proved by the
Principal on oath, recorded the date of birth as
03.07.2006. The existence of such material
inconsistency
in
foundational
documents
rendered the documentary evidence unreliable.
[Paras 7, 9]

Where documentary evidence suffers from
apparent discrepancies and contradictions, the
Appellate
Court
is
justified
in
directing
ossification
test
to
arrive
at
a
correct
determination of age. The Juvenile Justice Board
committed a legal error in declaring juvenility
without resolving such inconsistency through
permissible medical examination. [Paras 5, 9]
1244 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
The Appellate Court's order remanding the
matter to the Juvenile Justice Board with a
direction to conduct ossification test was found
to be in consonance with Section 94 of the Act
of 2015 and supported by binding precedents of
the Supreme Court. No illegality or perversity
warranting interference under Section 102 of
the Act of 2015 was made out. [Paras 8-10]

Criminal revision dismissed; order of the
Appellate Court upheld. [Para 10] (E-14)

Case Law Cited
Rajni v. State of U.P., 2025 SCC OnLine SC
1183 - relied on; Rishipal Singh Solanki v.
State of U.P., (2022) 8 SCC 602 - relied
on; P. Yuvaprakash v. State, 2023 INSC
676 - relied on; Vinod Katara v. State of
U.P., (2023) 15 SCC 210 - relied on;
Sanjeev Kumar Gupta v. State of U.P.,
(2019) 12 SCC 370 - referred; Kalim v.
State of U.P., 2022 SCC OnLine All 2407 -
followed.

List of Acts / Statutes
Juvenile
Justice
(Care
and
Protection
of
Children) Act, 2015; Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,

## Text

_Characters 0–39,867 of 41,624. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39867 for what follows._

9 All. Master X Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1243
the national honour by burn, mutilates,
defiles, destroys, tramples upon is an
offence. Any person, who is directly or
indirectly involved in maligning the
image of our country (India) and
National
flag
in
any
manner
are
hazardous for the society, hence such
persons
are
not
liable
for
any
sympathetical consideration.

10-As a fall out and consequence of
above discussions as well as considering
the overall facts and circumstances of
the
case,
keeping
in
view
the
submissions advanced on behalf of
parties, nature of the posts allegedly
posted / shared by the applicant on
social media platform as noted above,
gravity of offence and their potential
impact
on
societal
harmony,
role
assigned to applicant and severity of
punishment, I do not find any good
ground to release the applicant on bail.

11-Accordingly, the bail application of
applicant is rejected.
----------
(2025) 9 ILRA 1243
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 08.09.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAURABH LAVANIA, J.

Criminal Revision No. 922 of 2025

Master X ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Manoj Kumar Singh

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A., Gopal Ji Shukla, Rajesh Kumar Verma
Issue for Consideration
Whether the Appellate Court was justified in
setting aside the order of the Juvenile Justice
Board declaring the accused as a juvenile solely
on the basis of documentary evidence and in
directing ossification test for determination of
age, in view of material discrepancies in school
and birth records, under Section 94 of the
Juvenile
Justice
(Care
and
Protection
of
Children) Act, 2015.

Headnotes
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of
Children) Act, 2015 - s.94; s.102 -
Determination of age - Documentary
evidence - Conflicting school records -
Birth certificate - Parivar register -
Ossification test - When permissible -
Appellate interference - Revisional scope-
Appellate Court order upheld- revision
dismissed.

Held:
Section 94(2) of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015
prescribes a hierarchy of evidence for age
determination. Preference is to be given to
school or matriculation certificates, followed by
birth certificate issued by municipal authority or
panchayat, and only in the absence of reliable
documentary evidence, ossification or medical
age determination test may be directed. [Paras
8-9]

In the present case, the Juvenile Justice Board
relied upon the date of birth recorded as
02.08.2010 in the high school mark-sheet and
parivar register, whereas the school register of
the first attended primary school, proved by the
Principal on oath, recorded the date of birth as
03.07.2006. The existence of such material
inconsistency
in
foundational
documents
rendered the documentary evidence unreliable.
[Paras 7, 9]

Where documentary evidence suffers from
apparent discrepancies and contradictions, the
Appellate
Court
is
justified
in
directing
ossification
test
to
arrive
at
a
correct
determination of age. The Juvenile Justice Board
committed a legal error in declaring juvenility
without resolving such inconsistency through
permissible medical examination. [Paras 5, 9]
1244 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
The Appellate Court's order remanding the
matter to the Juvenile Justice Board with a
direction to conduct ossification test was found
to be in consonance with Section 94 of the Act
of 2015 and supported by binding precedents of
the Supreme Court. No illegality or perversity
warranting interference under Section 102 of
the Act of 2015 was made out. [Paras 8-10]

Criminal revision dismissed; order of the
Appellate Court upheld. [Para 10] (E-14)

Case Law Cited
Rajni v. State of U.P., 2025 SCC OnLine SC
1183 - relied on; Rishipal Singh Solanki v.
State of U.P., (2022) 8 SCC 602 - relied
on; P. Yuvaprakash v. State, 2023 INSC
676 - relied on; Vinod Katara v. State of
U.P., (2023) 15 SCC 210 - relied on;
Sanjeev Kumar Gupta v. State of U.P.,
(2019) 12 SCC 370 - referred; Kalim v.
State of U.P., 2022 SCC OnLine All 2407 -
followed.

List of Acts / Statutes
Juvenile
Justice
(Care
and
Protection
of
Children) Act, 2015; Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,
2023.

List of Keywords
Juvenile Justice; Determination of age; Section
94 JJ Act; Conflicting school records; Birth
certificate; Parivar register; Ossification test;
Medical
age
determination;
Revisional
jurisdiction.

Case Arising From
Order
dated
25.07.2025
passed
by
the
Additional Sessions Judge / Special Judge
(POCSO Act), Bahraich in Criminal Appeal No. 52
of 2025, arising out of order dated 27.05.2025
passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Bahraich
in Case No. 124/12/2024, Case Crime No. 626
of 2024, Police Station Motipur, District Bahraich.

Appearance for Parties
For the Revisionists: Sri Manoj Kumar Singh
For the Opposite parties nos. 2 and 3: Sri
Rajesh Kumar Verma, Sri Gopalji Shukla
For the State: Sri Badrul Hasan, A.G.A

(Delivered by Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania, J.)

 Vakalatnama filed by Shri Rajesh
Kumar Verma, Advocate and Shri Gopalji
Shukla, Advocate, on behalf of opposite
party nos. 2 and 3, is taken on record.

(Order on Memo of Revision)

1. Heard Shri Manoj Kumar Singh,
learned counsel for the revisionist; Shri
Badrul Hasan, learned A.G.A. for the State,
and above named counsel of opposite party
nos. 2 and 3.

2. The present criminal revision, under
Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and
Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (in short
"Act of 2015"), has been filed challenging the
order dated 25.07.2025 passed by the
Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge
(POCSO Act), Bahraich (in short "Appellate
Court"), in Criminal Appeal No. 52 of 2025
(Rajneesh Kumar and Another Vs. State of
U.P. and Others).

3. Vide order dated 25.07.2025, the
Appellate Court interfered in the order date
27.05.2025 passed by the Juvenile Justice
Board, Bahraich (in short "JJB") in Case
No. 124/12/2024 (State Vs. Aslam), arising
out of Case Crime No. 626 of 2024, under
Sections 109, 352, 351(3), 3(5) of BNS,
Police Station- Motipur, District- Bahraich.

4. Vide order dated 27.05.2025, the
JJB, based upon the date of birth indicated
in the birth certificate i.e. 02.08.2010, held
that on the date of incident, i.e. 12.12.2024
the accused-juvenile was aged about 14
years, 4 months, and 10 days. The relevant
portion of the order dated 27.05.2025 reads
as under:

पत्रािल के अिलोकि से यह
विददत होता है कक अपचार असलम कक्षा
9 All. Master X Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1245
01 से इतक प्राथलमक विद्यालय गोबबया में
पडा क्जसमें जिमनतचथ 03-07-2006 अंककत
है। सी०िब्लू ०3 में प्रधािाध्यापक िे
असलम पुत्र साबबर मेरे विद्यालय में िह ं
पढा है। सी०िब्लू ०2 तदोपरान्त कक्षा 09
से िियुग इडटर कालेज में लशक्षा ग्रहण की
है जहााँ अपचार की जन्मनतचथ 02-08-2010
अककत है अपचार का दाणखला उपरोक्त
विद्यालय में कक्षा 08 गायत्री बाल विद्या
मक्न्दर चगलौला श्रािस्ती द्िारा जार ट सी
के आधार पर ककया गया है। क्जसमें
जन्मनतचथ 02-08-2010 अंककत है। चूंकक
अपचार की जन्मनतचथ प्राथलमक विद्यालय
सी०िब्लू०3 में असलम पुत्र साबबर मेरे
विद्यालय में पढा िह ं फजी है तथा
हाईस्कूल में लभन्ि है। ऐसी पररक्स्थनत में
प्रस्तुत प्रकरण के तथ्यों के पररपेक्ष में
दाणखल जन्म प्रमाणपत्र को साबबत करिे
हेतु सी०िब्लू० का बयाि अंककत ककया गया
क्जसमें
ग्राम
पंचायत
अचधकार
ग्राम
पंचायि गोवपया द्वितीय विकास खडि को
पर क्षक्षत कराया गया है उन्होंिे अपिे बयाि
में कथि ककया है कक असलम की
जन्मनतचथ 02-08-2010 अंककत है।

पत्रािल में बाद को िोदटस भेजी
गयी। बाद मुकदमा का तामीला प्राप्त हुआ
िाद मुकदमा उपक्स्थत हुये। ऐसी क्स्थनत
में ककशोर न्याय (बालको की देख-रेख ि
संरक्षण) अचधनियम 2015 की धारा 94
आयु के निधामरण में अपिायी जािे िाल
प्रककयाओं के संबंध में प्राविधाि उपबक्न्धत
करती है। क्जसमें धारा (94) की उपधारा (2)
में यह प्राविधाि ककया गया है।

(2) यादद सलमनत या बोिम के पास
इस संबंध में संदेह होिे के युक्क्तयुक्त
आधार है कक क्या उसके समक्ष लाया गया
व्यक्क्त बालक है या िह ं, तो यथाक्स्थनत,
सलमनत या बोिम, निम्िललणखत साक्ष्य
अलभप्राप्त करके आयु अिधारण की प्रकिया
का क्जम्मा लेगा-

(1) विद्यालय से प्राप्त जन्म
तार ख प्रमाण-पत्र या संबंचधत पर क्षा बोिम
से मैदट्रकुलेशि या समतुल्य प्रमाण-पत्र यदद
उपलब्ध हो और उसके अभाि में,

(ii)
निगम
या
िगरपाललका
प्राचधकार या पंचायत द्िारा ददया गया
जन्म प्रमाणपत्र,

(i) उपरोक्त (i) और (ii) के अभाि
में, आयु का अिधारण सलमनत या बोिम के
अिधारण जााँच के आधार पर ककया आदेश
पर की गई अक्स्थ जॉच या कोई अन्य
ििीितम चचककत्सीय आयु जाएगाः-

अलभलेख / जन्म प्रमाणपत्र में
जन्मनतचथ 02-08-2010 दजम है क्जसको
साक्षी सी०िब्लू 104 द्िारा मूल अलभलेख से
प्रमाणणत करके दाणखल ककया गया है।
पत्रािल में दाणखल चालाि पर घटिा की
नतचथ 12-12-2024 को उसकी उम्र 14 िर्म
04 माह 10 ददि पायी जाती है क्जसके
आधार पर बालक असलम को ककशोर
न्याय अचधनियम में पररभावर्त विचध का
1246 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
उल्लंघि करिे िाला बालक की पररचध में
आता है अतः बालक असलम को घटिा की
नतचथ 12-12-2024 को विचध का उल्लंघि
करिे िाला बालक अियस्क / ककशोर
घोवर्त ककये जािे योग्य है।

आदेश

मुकदमा अपराध संख्या 626/2024
अन्तगमत धारा-109,352,351 (3) 3 (5) बी.
एि. एस थािा-मोतीपुर जिपद बहराइच के
मामले के घटिा की नतचथ 12-12-2024 को
बालक असलम की उम्र 14 िर्म 04 माह 10
ददि अिधाररत करते हुए बालक ककशोर
घोवर्त ककया जाता है। तदािुसार आिेदक
का प्राथमिा पत्र निस्ताररत ककया जाता है।"

5. Being aggrieved, the informant filed
the appeal, registered as Appeal No. 52 of
2025 (Supra). This appeal has been decided
vide impugned order dated 25.07.2025. By
this order, the Appellate Court interfered in
the order dated 27.05.2025 passed by JJB
and remanded the matter back to JJB
directing to hold the ossification test of the
accused-juvenile
for
coming
to
the
conclusion regarding the age of the
accused-juvenile at the time of incidence.
The relevant portion of the order of the
appellate Court dated 25.07.2025 reads as
under:

"10- इस प्रकार अिर न्यायालय
की पत्रािल पर उपलब्ध साक्ष्य के
विश्लेर्ण एिं उपरोक्त विचधक प्राविधाि के
पररप्रेक्ष्य में विद्िाि ककशोर न्याय पररर्द
बहराइच द्िारा अलभयुक्त असलम के प्रथम
विद्यालय में कक्षा-/ में प्रिेश से सम्बक्न्धत
शैक्षणणक अलभलेखों में अंककत जन्मनतचथ
03.07.2006 एिं हाईस्कूल के अंकपत्र/प्रमाण
पत्र
ि
अन्य
अलभलेखों
में
अंककत
जन्मनतचथ 02.08.2010 में लभन्िता होिे
तथा जन्म प्रमाण-पत्र में भी हाईस्कूल
अंकपत्र में अंककत जन्मनतचथ को दलशमत
करके ददिांक 09.04.2025 को निगमत ककये
जािे
के
दृक्टटगत
अलभयुक्त
के
ऑलसकफकेशि
टेस्ट
के
आधार
पर
अलभयुक्त के आयु का निधामरण ककया जािा
चादहए था, ऐसा ि करके विद्िाि ककशोर
न्याय पररर्द बहराइच द्िारा विचधक त्रुदट
काररत की गयी है, इसललए विद्िाि ककशोर
न्याय
पररर्द
बहराइच
द्िारा
पाररत
आलोच्य
आदेश
ददिांककत 27.05.2025
क्स्थर रहिे योग्य िह ं है। तदिुसार
दाक्डिक अपील स्िीकार करते हुये आलोच्य
आदेश ददिांककत 27.05.2025 अपास्त ककये
जािे योग्य पाया जाता है।

आदेश

अपीलाथीगण की ओर से प्रस्तुत
उपरोक्त दाक्डिक अपील स्िीकार की जाती
है। प्रकीणम िाद सं०- 124/12/2024. अन्तगमत
धारा 109, 352, 351(3), 3(5) बी०एि०एस०,
थािा मोतीपुर, जिपद बहराइच के मामले
में विद्िाि ककशोर न्याय पररर्द बहराइच
द्िारा पाररत आदेश ददिांककत 27.05.2025
9 All. Master X Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1247
अपास्त ककया जाता है तथा विद्िाि
ककशोर न्याय पररर्द बहराइच को निदेलशत
ककया जाता है कक िह अलभयुक्त के आयु
का निधामरण अलभयुक्ता का ऑलसकफकेशि
टेस्ट कराते हुये दोिों पक्षों को सुििे के
पश्चात् गुण-दोर् के आधार पर ककया जािा
सुनिक्श्चत करें। पक्षकार ददिााँक 31.07.2025
को ककशोर न्यायालय के समक्ष सुििाई हेतु
उपक्स्थत हों।

इस आदेश की एक प्रनत के साथ
विद्िाि ककशोर न्याय पररर्द बहराइच की
सम्पूणम पत्रािल नियमािुसार ककशोर न्याय
पररर्द बहराइच को अविलम्ब िापस की
जाये।"

6. In the aforesaid background of the
case, the instant revision has been filed.

7. For coming to the conclusion as to
whether interference is required in the
order dated 25.07.2025 passed by the
Appellate Court, this court considered the
following facts, as brought to the notice of
this court by learned counsel for the parties
from the record.

(i) With regard to an incident
occurred on 12.12.2024, an FIR was
lodged on the same day i.e. on 12.12.2024
at Police Station- Motipur, District -
Bahraich.

(ii) The FIR was registered as
Case Crime No. 626 of 2024 and taking
note of the allegations therein the same was
lodged under Section - 109, 352, 351(3)
BNS.

(iii) After investigation, charge
sheet has been filed against the accusedjuvenile under Sections 109, 352, 351(3),
3(5) of BNS.

(iv) To avoid the rigors of
provisions of the Act of 2015, according to
which if an offence is committed by a minor
aged between 16 to 18 years then in that
eventuality he can be tried as an adult, an
application was moved for determination of
age of accused-juvenile.

(v) The application aforesaid was
based upon the date of birth i.e. 02.08.2010
indicated in the mark sheet of the accusedjuvenile of High School Examination of
2024 and Parivar Register.

(vi) To establish/proof the date of
birth of accused-juvenile i.e. 02.08.2010,
the father of the accused-juvenile, aged
about 44 years, appeared before the JJB
and his statement was recorded. According
to the statement of father of the accusedjuvenile before the JJB, the accusedjuvenile studied at Government Primary
School, Gopiya, from Class I to V.

(vii) Considering the statement of
the father of the accused-juvenile, the
Principal of Government Primary School,
Gopiya, along with record, was summoned
by the JJB.

(viii)
Before
the
JJB,
the
Principal produced the school register,
according to which the accused-juvenile
was born on 03.07.2006. Relevant portion
of the order of the JJB in this regard reads
as under:

शैक्षाणणक प्रपत्रों ि उसमे अंककत आयु
को साबबत करिे के ललए प्रधािाध्यापक
प्राथलमक विद्यालय गोवपया द्वितीय को
पर क्षक्षत कराया गया। उक्त साक्षी. िब्लू ०3
िे सशपथ बयाि ककया है कक" बाल
अपचार असलम के मूल अलभलेख लेकर
बोिम के समक्ष उपक्स्थत आया। मै अपिे
1248 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
साथ प्रिेश फामम अपिे साथ प्रिेश रक्जस्टर
ि उपक्स्थत रक्जस्टर में अपिे साथ लेकर
आया हूाँ एस आर रक्जस्टर दो जो िम स.
1857 से 2233 तक है छात्र असलम अहमद
जो कक 1905 पर िाम अंककत है क्जसमें,
उसकी जन्मनतचथ 03-07-2006 अंककत है
छात्र में मेरे विद्यालय में कक्षा 01 में प्रिेश
ललया था।"

8. This Court also considered the
following judgments.

A. The judgment passed by Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of Rajni v. State of
U.P., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1183.
Relevant portion of which reads as under :-

25.
Section
94
deals
with
presumption and determination of age.
Section 94 reads thus:

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 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.

25.1. Thus the process of age
determination is provided in sub-section (2)
of Section 94 which is identical to the
procedure prescribed under sub-rule (3) of
Rule 12 of the JJ Rules, 2007. Sub-section
(2) of Section 94 says that to undertake the
process of age determination, the child
welfare committee or the JJB shall seek
evidence in the following manner:

(i) the date of birth certificate
from the school or the matriculation or
equivalent certificate from the concerned
Board, if available;

(ii) in the absence thereof, the
birth certificate given by a corporation or a
municipal authority or a panchayat;

(iii) in the absence of (i) and (ii),
the age shall be determined by an
ossification test or by any other latest
9 All. Master X Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1249
medical age determination test conducted
on the orders of the child welfare
committee or the JJB.

26. Having noticed the relevant
legal framework, let us examine as to how
the case of respondent No. 2 vis-a-vis
juvenility was dealt with by the JJB and
thereafter
by
the
learned
Additional
District and Sessions Judge. As already
noted above, JJB had held respondent No.
2 to be not a juvenile which decision was
reversed by the learned Additional District
and Sessions Judge and affirmed by the
High Court.

27. At this stage, we need to
mention that the date of the incident is
17.02.2021. On behalf of respondent No. 2,
certificate from the DPS Higher Secondary
School, Parvesh Vihar, Meerut was filed.
Date of admission was mentioned as
04.04.2016. Date of birth of respondent No.
2
was
mentioned
as
08.09.2003.
Respondent No. 2 had passed the high
school examination in the year 2018 from
the said DPS Higher Secondary School,
Parvesh Vihar, Meerut. Thereafter, he was
studying in CRK Inter College, Meerut.
Therefore, on the date of the incident,
respondent No. 2 was below 18 years of
age. In the register of DPS Higher
Secondary School and marksheet of high
school examination, the date of birth of
respondent No. 2 was mentioned as
08.09.2003. JJB in an earlier proceeding
relating
to
respondent
No.
2
i.e.
Miscellaneous Case No. 9/2000 in respect
of Crime Case No. 11/2000 under Section
307 IPC, Police Station Medical College,
Meerut had accepted the date of birth of
respondent No. 2 as 08.09.2003. It is seen
that in the present proceeding JJB
examined mother of respondent No. 2 who
had filed the application to declare her son,
respondent No. 2, as juvenile. JJB observed
that she did not remember in which school
respondent No. 2 had studied from Class 1
to Class 7 before taking admission in DPS
Higher Secondary School in Class 8. In her
statement,
Principal
of
DPS
Higher
Secondary School, Smt. Manju Mala
Sharma stated that she was working in the
same school since the year 1996 and
asserted that respondent No. 2 had
obtained his education from her school
from Class 4 to High School but original
record of Class 4 to Class 8 were not
available as those were destroyed due to
fire.

27.1. JJB also rejected the birth
certificate
of
Meerut
Municipal
Corporation which showed the date of birth
of respondent No. 2 as 08.09.2003 on the
ground that it was issued on 08.06.2020.

27.2. As regards the earlier
decision of JJB, it was observed that the
present informant was not a party therein.
Therefore, she had no opportunity to tender
evidence or to rebut the claim of juvenility
of respondent No. 2. Thus the previous
decision of JJB was not applicable.

27.3. It was in that context, JJB
passed an order for medical examination of
respondent No. 2. In compliance to such
order, the Medical Board submitted report
on 27.07.2021 assessing the age of
respondent No. 2 as about 21 years.

27.4. JJB accepted the medical
report dated 27.07.2021 wherein age of
respondent No. 2 was assessed as about 21
years. On that basis, respondent No. 2 was
found to be more than 18 years of age on
the date of the incident. Thus respondent
No. 2 was held to be an adult as on
17.02.2021 i.e. the date of the incident.

28.
Admittedly,
the
line
of
reasoning adopted by the JJB is totally
fallacious. When the concerned birth
certificate from the school was available as
well as birth certificate issued by the
Meerut Municipal Corporation, JJB could
1250 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
not have opted for ossification test. The
statute is very clear that only in the
absence of the certificates under clause (i)
and clause (ii) of subsection (2) of Section
94 can the JJB order for an ossification test
or any other medical test to determine the
age of the juvenile. The certificate of the
Meerut Municipal Corporation was issued
on 08.06.2020 before the date of the
incident. In any event, it was not open to
the JJB to go behind the available school
certificate or the birth certificate of the
Corporation and record evidence
to
examine the correctness or otherwise of
such certificate. This is not the mandate of
Section 94(2) of the JJ Act, 2015.
Therefore, the learned Additional District
and Sessions Judge was justified in
reversing such decision of the JJB. Learned
Additional District and Sessions Judge
gave preference to the date of birth of
respondent No. 2 mentioned in the high
school certificate wherein his date of birth
was mentioned as 08.09.2003. Thus,
respondent No. 2 was 17 years 3 months 10
days
on
the
date
of
the
incident.
Accordingly, he was declared as a juvenile
delinquent.

29.
But
there
is
a
more
fundamental issue here. In an earlier
proceeding being Miscellaneous Case No.
9/2000 arising out of Crime Case No.
11/2000 registered under Section 307 IPC
in the Medical College Police Station,
Meerut, JJB had accepted the date of birth
of respondent No. 2 as 08.09.2003. It is not
open to the JJB to say in subsequent
proceeding that date of birth of respondent
No. 2 is not 08.09.2003 and thereafter
proceed to have the opinion of the medical
board. If this is permitted, it will amount to
reviewing its earlier order. The JJ Act,
2015 confers no such power of review upon
the JJB. It is trite law that power of review
is either statutorily conferred or by
necessary implication. No such power of
JJB is traceable under the JJ Act, 2015.

30. High Court accepted the high
school certificate of respondent No. 2 and
held that there is no scope to interfere with
the order of the learned Additional District
and Sessions Judge.

31. In Rishipal Singh Solanki v.
State of U.P.,(2022) 8 SCC 602, this Court
after considering a catena of previous
decisions of this Court held as follows:

33. * * * * * *

33.1. A claim of juvenility may be
raised at any stage of a criminal
proceeding, even after a final disposal of
the case. A delay in raising the claim of
juvenility cannot be a ground for rejection
of such claim. It can also be raised for the
first time before this Court.

33.2. An application claiming
juvenility could be made either before the
court or the JJ Board.

33.2.1.
When
the
issue
of
juvenility arises before a court, it would be
under sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 9
of the JJ Act, 2015 but when a person is
brought before a committee or JJ Board,
Section 94 of the JJ Act, 2015 applies.

33.2.2. If an application is filed
before the court claiming juvenility, the
provision of sub-section (2) of Section 94 of
the JJ Act, 2015 would have to be applied
or read along with sub-section (2) of
Section 9 so as to seek evidence for the
purpose of recording a finding stating the
age of the person as nearly as may be.

33.2.3. When an application
claiming juvenility is made under Section
94 of the JJ Act, 2015 before the JJ Board
when the matter regarding the alleged
commission of offence is pending before a
court, then the procedure contemplated
under Section 94 of the JJ Act, 2015 would
apply. Under the said provision if the JJ
9 All. Master X Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1251
Board has reasonable grounds for doubt
regarding whether the person brought
before it is a child or not, the Board shall
undertake the process of age determination
by seeking evidence and the age recorded
by the JJ Board to be the age of the person
so brought before it shall, for the purpose
of the JJ Act, 2015, be deemed to be true
age of that person. Hence the degree of
proof required in such a proceeding before
the JJ Board, when an application is filed
seeking a claim of juvenility when the trial
is before the criminal court concerned, is
higher than when an inquiry is made by a
court before which the case regarding the
commission of the offence is pending (vide
Section 9 of the JJ Act, 2015).

33.3. That when a claim for
juvenility is raised, the burden is on the
person raising the claim to satisfy the court
to discharge the initial burden. However,
the
documents
mentioned
in
Rules
12(3)(a)(i), (ii) and (iii) of the JJ Rules,
2007 made under the JJ Act, 2000 or subsection (2) of Section 94 of the JJ Act,
2015, shall be sufficient for prima facie
satisfaction of the court. On the basis of the
aforesaid documents a presumption of
juvenility may be raised.

33.4. The said presumption is
however not conclusive proof of the age of
juvenility and the same may be rebutted by
contra evidence let in by the opposite side.

33.5. That the procedure of an
inquiry by a court is not the same thing as
declaring the age of the person as a
juvenile sought before the JJ Board when
the case is pending for trial before the
criminal court concerned. In case of an
inquiry, the court records a prima facie
conclusion
but
when
there
is
a
determination of age as per sub-section (2)
of Section 94 of the 2015 Act, a declaration
is made on the basis of evidence. Also the
age recorded by the JJ Board shall be
deemed to be the true age of the person
brought before it. Thus, the standard of
proof in an inquiry is different from that
required in a proceeding where the
determination and declaration of the age of
a person has to be made on the basis of
evidence scrutinised and accepted only if
worthy of such acceptance.

33.6. That it is neither feasible
nor desirable to lay down an abstract
formula to determine the age of a
person. It has to be on the basis of the
material on record and on appreciation
of evidence adduced by the parties in
each case.

33.7. This Court has observed
that a hypertechnical approach should not
be adopted when evidence is adduced on
behalf of the accused in support of the plea
that he was a juvenile.

33.8. If two views are possible on
the same evidence, the court should lean in
favour of holding the accused to be a
juvenile in borderline cases. This is in
order to ensure that the benefit of the JJ
Act, 2015 is made applicable to the juvenile
in conflict with law. At the same time, the
court should ensure that the JJ Act, 2015 is
not
misused
by
persons
to
escape
punishment after having committed serious
offences.

33.9.
That
when
the
determination of age is on the basis of
evidence such as school records, it is
necessary that the same would have to be
considered as per Section 35 of the
Evidence Act, inasmuch as any public or
official
document
maintained
in
the
discharge of official duty would have
greater credibility than private documents.

33.10. Any document which is in
consonance with public documents, such as
matriculation certificate, could be accepted
by the court or the JJ Board provided such
public document is credible and authentic
1252 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
as per the provisions of the Evidence Act
viz. Section 35 and other provisions.

33.11. Ossification test cannot be
the sole criterion for age determination and
a mechanical view regarding the age of a
person cannot be adopted solely on the
basis of medical opinion by radiological
examination.
Such
evidence
is
not
conclusive evidence but only a very useful
guiding factor to be considered in the
absence of documents mentioned in Section
94(2) of the JJ Act, 2015.

32. A two-Judge Bench of this
Court in P. Yuvaprakash v. State, 2023
INSC 676 held thus:

14. Section 94 (2)(iii) of the JJ
Act clearly indicates that the date of birth
certificate from the school or matriculation
or equivalent certificate by the concerned
examination board has to be firstly
preferred in the absence of which the birth
certificate issued by the Corporation or
Municipal Authority or Panchayat and it is
only thereafter in the absence of these such
documents the age is to be determined
through "an ossification test" or "any
other latest medical age determination
test" conducted on the orders of the
concerned authority, i.e. Committee or
Board or Court. In the present case,
concededly, only a transfer certificate and
not the date of birth certificate or
matriculation or equivalent certificate was
considered. Ex. C1, i.e., the school transfer
certificate showed the date of birth of the
victim as 11.07.1997. Significantly, the
transfer certificate was produced not by the
prosecution but instead by the court
summoned witness, i.e., CW-1. The burden
is always upon the prosecution to establish
what it alleges; therefore, the prosecution
could not have been fallen back upon a
document which it had never relied upon.
Furthermore,
DW-3,
the
concerned
Revenue Official (Deputy Tahsildar) had
stated on oath that the records for the year
1997 in respect to the births and deaths
were missing. Since it did not answer to the
description of any class of documents
mentioned in Section 94(2)(i) as it was a
mere transfer certificate, Ex C-1 could not
have been relied upon to hold that M was
below 18 years at the time of commission of
the offence.

B. The judgment passed by Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of Vinod Katara v.
State of U.P., (2023) 15 SCC 210 : 2022
SCC OnLine SC 1204. Relevant portion of
which reads as under :-

"51. What is discernible from the
dictum laid down in Ashwani Kumar
Saxena [Ashwani Kumar Saxena v. State of
M.P., (2012) 9 SCC 750 : (2013) 1 SCC
(Cri) 594 : AIR 2013 SC 553] is that, in
deciding whether an accused is juvenile or
not, a hypertechnical approach should not
be
adopted.
While
appreciating
the
evidence adduced on behalf of the accused
in support of the plea that he is a juvenile,
if two views are possible on the same
evidence, the court should lean in favour of
holding the accused to be juvenile in
borderline cases. The inquiry contemplated
is not a roving inquiry. The court can
accept as evidence something more than an
affidavit i.e. documents, certificates, etc. as
evidence in proof of age. A mere opinion by
a person as to the accused looking one or
two years older than the age claimed by
him (as the opinion of the head master in
the present case) or the fact that the
accused told his age to be more than what
he alleges in the case while being arrested
by the police officer would not hold much
water. It is the documentary evidence
placed on record that plays a major role in
determining the age of a juvenile in conflict
of law. And, it is only in the cases where
9 All. Master X Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1253
the documents or certificates placed on
record by the accused in support of his
claim of juvenility are found to be
fabricated or manipulated, that the court,
the
Juvenile
Justice
Board
or
the
Committee need to go for medical test for
age determination."

C. The judgment passed by
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sanjeev
Kumar Gupta v. State of U.P., (2019) 12
SCC 370 : (2019) 4 SCC (Cri) 379 : 2019
SCC OnLine SC 926 at page 380

"16. Both these judgments have
since been considered by a two-Judge
Bench of this Court in Parag Bhati [Parag
Bhati v. State of U.P., (2016) 12 SCC 744 :
(2017) 3 SCC (Cri) 819] , where it was
observed : (SCC p. 758, para 36)

"36. 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 of
date of birth, 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 [Abuzar Hossain v. State of W.B.,
(2012) 10 SCC 489 : (2013) 1 SCC (Cri)
83] , an enquiry for determination of the
age of the accused is permissible which has
been done in the present case."

19. Now it is in this background
that it becomes necessary for the Court to
determine whether the High Court, in the
exercise of its revisional jurisdiction, was
justified in reversing the view of the
learned Sessions Judge that the second
respondent was not a juvenile on the date
of the incident. In seeking to place reliance
on the date of birth (17-12-1998) recorded
in the CBSE matriculation certificate, the
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
second respondent has submitted that
under the provisions of Rule 12(3)(a) the
said certificate has precedence over any
other evidentiary document. In the course
of the hearing of the appeal, we directed
the CBSE to produce its records and to file
an affidavit indicating the basis on which
the date of birth was recorded in the
matriculation certificate. The affidavit filed
by the CBSE indicates that the date of birth
in the records maintained by the CBSE was
recorded purely on the basis of the final list
of students forwarded by Maa Anjani
Senior Secondary School, Etah Road,
Shikohabad.

21. CBSE has stated before this
Court that the date recorded in the
matriculation certificate was purely on the
basis of the final list of students forwarded
by the Headmistress of Maa Anjani Senior
Secondary
School,
Shikohabad.
The
Headmistress
of
Maa
Anjani
Senior
Secondary School, Shikohabad deposed
during the enquiry before the JJB,
Firozabad.
In
the
course
of
her
examination, Headmistress Dipti Solanki
stated:

"... We note down the date of
birth of the student at the time of admission
as per the information given by the parents
and at the same time we obtain an affidavit
but we could not procure an affidavit from
this student. I have committed a mistake by
not procuring an affidavit from this student.
The date of birth was entered on the basis
of
the
information
given
by
the
parent/father."

The Headmistress further stated:

" The father did not produce any
record at the time of admission in respect
of the date of birth of the student. They
1254 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
would have been asked to produce the
record of Class 4 at the time of admission
but they did not. I cannot tell the reason
thereof. The students are admitted without
any document up to Class 5."

The above deposition indicates
that the second respondent was admitted to
Maa Anjani Senior Secondary School,
Shikohabad in the fifth standard and was a
student of the school until he completed his
matriculation.
The
second
respondent
attended Saket Vidya Sthali, Jedajhal,
Firozabad until the fourth standard. The
school register and transfer certificate form
of that school specifically contain an entry
in regard to the date of birth of the second
respondent as 17-12-1995.

22. Mr Ravindra Singh, learned
Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the
second respondent has urged that the
discrepancies which have been brought out
in the course of the cross-examination of
the former Manager of the school would
indicate that there is a doubt in regard to
the
authenticity
of
that
certificate.
However, in our view, what must weigh
against the second respondent's submission
is that the date of birth which has been
recorded in the certificate of Saket Vidya
Sthali completely matches the date of birth
which was voluntarily disclosed by the
second respondent both while obtaining his
driving licence as well as the Aadhaar
card. In both those documents, the
originals of which were seized during the
course of the investigation and have been
produced before this Court, the date of
birth is reflected as 17-12-1995. The
driving licence and the Aadhaar card are
not standalone documents. The submission
of the learned Senior Counsel that the date
of birth in those documents may have been
furnished by the accused to obtain an
undue
advantage
cannot
simply
be
accepted since it tallies with the date of
birth indicated in the school records of
Saket Vidya Sthali School. It is evident
from the above analysis that the date of
birth which was forwarded in the roll of
students of Maa Anjani Senior Secondary
School, Shikohabad was the sole basis of
the date of birth which was recorded in the
matriculation certificate. The date of birth
in the records of Maa Anjani Senior
Secondary
School where
the
second
respondent was a student from Class V to
Class
X
is
without
any
underlying
document, as stated by the Principal in the
course of the enquiry before the JJB. On the
other
hand,
there
is
a
clear
and
unimpeachable evidence in the form of the
date of birth which has been recorded in the
records of Saket Vidya Sthali School which is
supported by the voluntary disclosure made by
the second respondent while obtaining both
the Aadhaar card and the driving licence. The
High Court reversed the findings of the
Sessions Judge purely on the basis of the
matriculation certificate. For the reasons
which we have indicated, the date of birth as
reflected therein cannot be accepted as
authentic or credible. Once we come to the
conclusion, as we have, that the date of birth
of the second respondent is 17-12-1995, he
was not entitled to the claim of juvenility as of
the date of the alleged incident which took
place on 18-8-2015."

D. The judgment passed by this Court
at Allahabad in the case of Kalim v. State
of U.P., 2022 SCC OnLine All 2407.
Relevant portion of which reads as under :-

"15. Coming to the facts of this
matter
admittedly,
the
school
leaving
certificate, wherein the date of birth was
shown as 10.08.2006, issued on 25.11.2020 by
the Primary School, Bawan Kheri, ThanaHasanpur, Amroha was produced, however,
the authenticity and the acceptability of that
9 All. Rachana Devi & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1255
certificate was challenged by the respondentinformant by producing a copy of pariwar
register showing date of birth of juvenile as of
the year 1999 as well as a driving licence
showing the same year of birth. Thereafter, in
rebuttal another copy of pariwar register was
produced on behalf of the juvenile showing his
date of birth as 10.08.2006.

17. From the perusal of the
impugned order, it appears that finding the
school leaving certificate quite doubtful and
finding that there was no underlying document
to record his age at the time of admission in
the concerned institution coupled with the
facts that other documents like copy of
pariwar register and driving licence showed
different age of the juvenile, in my view, the
Juvenile Justice Board and the learned
Appellate Court below rightly embarked on an
inquiry and radiological age was ordered to
be conducted. The courts below cannot be
faulted
for
depending
upon
the
medical/radiological age of the juvenile and
declaring him as an adult on the basis of the
evidence
available
in
the
facts
and
circumstance of the case. Before this Court,
copy of bail order passed in Bail Application
No. 70/2022 dated 15.01.2022 passed by the
Incharge, Sessions Judge, Amroha and copy of
the order passed by this Court on 24.05.2022
in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 7301
of 2022 moved on behalf of the present
revisionist, who claim himself to be a juvenile,
has been brought on record. In the bail
application moved before the Sessions Judge,
the applicant-revisionist has shown his age as
19 years, which goes against his own claim.

18.