# Muskan & Anr v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 11 ILRA 1276
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-11-11
- **Case number:** Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 963 of 2025
- **Bench:** J.J. Munir, Sanjiv Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/muskan-anr-v-state-of-u-p-ors-52742
- **Pages:** 11

## Headnote

G.A.

Issue for Consideration
(i) Whether the certificate produced from the
Shaheed Bhagat Singh Junior High School,
Bithoor,
Kanpur
Nagar
on
01.08.2025,
mentioning that the detenue studied there from
Class IV to VI, and, the transfer certificate
issued, without a date, are all bogus documents
and do not reflect the first petitioner's age
correctly.

(ii) What would constitute a date of birth
certificate from the school, within the meaning
of sub-Section (2) of Section 94 of the Juvenile
Justice Act?

Head Notes
The Constitution of India,1950-Article
226, The Juvenile Justice Act, 2015-94,
Sub- Section (2) of Section 94 of the
Juvenile Justice Act, there is a precedence
to the class of evidence about the age of a
victim, like a juvenile. The first preference,
for the purpose of determining the age of
a victim, is the date of birth certificate
from the school or the matriculation or
equivalent
certificate
from
the
11 All. Muskan & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1277
examination
board
concerned,
if
available. If the aforesaid evidence is
not forthcoming, the birth certificate,
given by a Corporation or a Municipal
Authority or a Panchayat, is the next
class of evidence that is admissible to
determine a victim's age. If both
these are not there, the age of the
victim
may
be
determined
by
undertaking an ossification test or
any
other
latest
medial
age
determination test conducted under
orders of the Child Welfare Committee
or
the
Juvenile
Justice
Board-This
power is always available to the Court,
whether the District Judge or this
Court- Writ petition succeeds and is
allowed-The rule nisi is made absolute.
Held-
(i) The detenue's date of birth have been
produced from the school records, are all
inaccurate and unreliable which cannot be
accepted to determine the detenue's age.

(ii) The petitioner's date of birth has
already been medically determined by a
board of doctors under the authority of the
Chief Medical Officer, Kanpur pursuant to
orders of this Court passed in Criminal
Misc. Writ Petition No. 19047 of 2025 on
28th August, 2025. The report of the
Medical Board dated 8th September, 2025,
opines the detenue to be aged about
eighteen
years
on
the
basis
of
an
ossification test and other medical tests as
well.(Para 29 to 32)
Writ Petition allowed. (E-15)

Case Law Cited
P. Yuvaprakash v. State Rep. By Inspector
of Police, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 846; Jarnail
Singh v. State of Haryana, (2013) 7 SCC
263

List of Acts
The Constitution of India,1950, The
Juvenile Justice Act, 2015

List of Keywords
Rule Nisi; Section 94(2) Juvenile Justice
Act; School records unreliable; Detenue's
age; Ossification test

Case Arising From
This habeas corpus writ petition has been
filed by Muskan, wife of Abhishek Rajput
alias Abhishek Kumar and daughter of
Manoj Kumar, through Abhishek Rajput,
her husband, who is the second petitioner
in this petition claiming that the first
petitioner Muskan is unlawfully detained in
the custody of the Government Children
Home (Girls), Unit-1, Swaroop Nagar,
Kanpur Nagar, pursuant to an order of the
Child Welfare Committee, Kanpur Dehat
dated 14.08.2025

Appearances for Parties
Counsel for Petitioners(s): Ved Prakash Tripathi
Counsel for Respondent(s): G.A.

## Text

1276 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

प्रश्ि- आप घर जािा चाहती है
अपिे वपताजी िे पा ?

उत्तर - िहीिं

प्रश्ि- आप िहााँ जािा चाहती
है?

उत्तर - हस्बैंि िे ाथ

प्रश्ि - आपिे हस्बैंि िा क्या
िाम है?

उत्तर - हर्ा गोस्वामी

20. The detenue has clearly stated that
she does not want to go to her parents, but
wishes to go and stay with her husband,
Harsh
Goshwami.
The
detenue
is
apparently a major and there is absolutely
no justification in detaining her in a
protection home, as done by the Child
Welfare Committee in this case pending
investigating in the crime registered at the
instance of the detenue's father.

21. In the circumstances, this habeas
corpus
petition
succeeds
and
stands
allowed. The rule nisi is made absolute.
The detenue, Smt. Joolee wife of Harsh
Goswami, daughter of Madan Giri, who is
present in Court, is ordered to be set at
liberty forthwith. She is free to go wherever
she likes and stay with whomsoever she
wants, including her husband.

22.
The
Headmistress,
Higher
Primary School (Composite School),
Kailash,
Bichpuri
Agra,
who
had
appeared in compliance with the order is
exempted from all future appearance.
The policemen, who have brought the
detenue in Court, are discharged of their
assignment. They will report back to the
respective headquarters.

23. Let the records produced by the
Headmistress be returned to her forthwith.
---------
(2025) 11 ILRA 1276
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 11.11.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J.
THE HON'BLE SANJIV KUMAR , J.

Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 963 of 2025

Muskan & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Ved Prakash Tripathi

Counsel for the Respondents:
G.A.

Issue for Consideration
(i) Whether the certificate produced from the
Shaheed Bhagat Singh Junior High School,
Bithoor,
Kanpur
Nagar
on
01.08.2025,
mentioning that the detenue studied there from
Class IV to VI, and, the transfer certificate
issued, without a date, are all bogus documents
and do not reflect the first petitioner's age
correctly.

(ii) What would constitute a date of birth
certificate from the school, within the meaning
of sub-Section (2) of Section 94 of the Juvenile
Justice Act?

Head Notes
The Constitution of India,1950-Article
226, The Juvenile Justice Act, 2015-94,
Sub- Section (2) of Section 94 of the
Juvenile Justice Act, there is a precedence
to the class of evidence about the age of a
victim, like a juvenile. The first preference,
for the purpose of determining the age of
a victim, is the date of birth certificate
from the school or the matriculation or
equivalent
certificate
from
the
11 All. Muskan & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1277
examination
board
concerned,
if
available. If the aforesaid evidence is
not forthcoming, the birth certificate,
given by a Corporation or a Municipal
Authority or a Panchayat, is the next
class of evidence that is admissible to
determine a victim's age. If both
these are not there, the age of the
victim
may
be
determined
by
undertaking an ossification test or
any
other
latest
medial
age
determination test conducted under
orders of the Child Welfare Committee
or
the
Juvenile
Justice
Board-This
power is always available to the Court,
whether the District Judge or this
Court- Writ petition succeeds and is
allowed-The rule nisi is made absolute.
Held-
(i) The detenue's date of birth have been
produced from the school records, are all
inaccurate and unreliable which cannot be
accepted to determine the detenue's age.

(ii) The petitioner's date of birth has
already been medically determined by a
board of doctors under the authority of the
Chief Medical Officer, Kanpur pursuant to
orders of this Court passed in Criminal
Misc. Writ Petition No. 19047 of 2025 on
28th August, 2025. The report of the
Medical Board dated 8th September, 2025,
opines the detenue to be aged about
eighteen
years
on
the
basis
of
an
ossification test and other medical tests as
well.(Para 29 to 32)
Writ Petition allowed. (E-15)

Case Law Cited
P. Yuvaprakash v. State Rep. By Inspector
of Police, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 846; Jarnail
Singh v. State of Haryana, (2013) 7 SCC
263

List of Acts
The Constitution of India,1950, The
Juvenile Justice Act, 2015

List of Keywords
Rule Nisi; Section 94(2) Juvenile Justice
Act; School records unreliable; Detenue's
age; Ossification test

Case Arising From
This habeas corpus writ petition has been
filed by Muskan, wife of Abhishek Rajput
alias Abhishek Kumar and daughter of
Manoj Kumar, through Abhishek Rajput,
her husband, who is the second petitioner
in this petition claiming that the first
petitioner Muskan is unlawfully detained in
the custody of the Government Children
Home (Girls), Unit-1, Swaroop Nagar,
Kanpur Nagar, pursuant to an order of the
Child Welfare Committee, Kanpur Dehat
dated 14.08.2025

Appearances for Parties
Counsel for Petitioners(s): Ved Prakash Tripathi
Counsel for Respondent(s): G.A.

(Delivered by Hon'ble J.J. Munir, J.
&
Hon'ble Sanjiv Kumar, J.)

1. A short counter affidavit has been
filed by Smt. Rajni Dixit, Principal,
Shaheed Bhagat Singh Junior High School,
Bithoor, Kanpur Nagar.

2. Another counter affidavit has been
filed on behalf of Manoj Kumar Rajput,
respondent no. 5, who is the detenue's
father.

3. A short counter affidavit has also
been filed on behalf of the State by Mr.
Deepak
Mishra,
learned
Additional
Government Advocate. It is an affidavit of
one Ranveer Singh, Sub-Inspector of
Police,
Police
Station-
Chaubeypur,
District- Kanpur Nagar.

4. Let all the aforesaid affidavits be
taken on record and numbered by the
office.

5.
Learned
Counsel
for
the
petitioners waives his opportunity to file
a rejoinder.
1278 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

6. Accordingly, we proceed to hear the
matter forthwith.

7. Heard Mr. Ved Prakash Tripathi,
learned Counsel for the petitioners, Mr.
Sanjay
Srivastava,
learned
Counsel
appearing on behalf of respondent no. 5
and Mr. Deepak Mishra, learned Additional
Government Advocate, appearing on behalf
of respondent nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4.

8. Respondent no. 6, is present in
person before this Court and he too has
been heard.

9. This habeas corpus writ petition has
been filed by Muskan, wife of Abhishek
Rajput alias Abhishek Kumar and daughter
of Manoj Kumar, through Abhishek Rajput,
her husband, who is the second petitioner
in this petition claiming that the first
petitioner Muskan is unlawfully detained in
the custody of the Government Children
Home (Girls), Unit-1, Swaroop Nagar,
Kanpur Nagar, pursuant to an order of the
Child Welfare Committee, Kanpur Dehat
dated 14.08.2025. A copy of the said order
has been produced during hearing, which is
taken on record and shall form part of it.

10. The petitioners, particularly the
second respondent, seek the issue of a writ
of habeas corpus requiring, by a rule nisi,
the respondents to produce the first
petitioner, Muskan, before the Court and
set her at liberty. The petitioners' case is
that Muskan, the first petitioner, and
Abhishek Rajput, the second petitioner,
have fallen in love and married each other,
as per details shortly to be mentioned.

11. The case of the petitioners is that
Muskan is a major aged about nineteen
years. She was born on 21.07.2006. Parties
have placed on record copies of Muskan's
Aadhar Card which, they say, was issued
on the basis of facts and particulars
furnished by her parents. It indicates her
date of birth on the Aadhar Card to be
21.07.2006. The second petitioner is a man
aged about twenty one years, his date of
birth being 01.01.2004.

12. According, to the petitioners they
have married on 02.08.2025 at the Arya
Samaj, Dabauli, Kanpur, according to
Hindu rites. The marriage was solemnised
in the presence of friends and the second
petitioner's brother. Parties' marriage was
registered in the office of the Marriage
Registrar, Kanpur Nagar on 07.08.2025. A
certificate of marriage dated 02.08.2025,
from the Arya Samaj, above mentioned,
and a copy of the certificate of registration
of marriage, issued by the Marriage
Registrar, Kanpur, are annexed together as
annexure no. 2 to the writ petition.

13. The fifth respondent, who is the
first petitioner's father, is averse to the
marriage. He is said to have beaten up the
petitioners on 07.08.2025 and threatened to
kill the second petitioner, his daughter's
husband. He has made it a point of honour
to compel the petitioners to separate.
Annoyed with the aforesaid step of
choosing a partner for themselves, taken by
the parties, the fifth respondent lodged a
First Information Report ('FIR' for short)
with the Police giving rise to Case Crime
No. 222 of 2025, under Sections 137(2) and
87 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
Police
Station-
Chaubepur,
District-
Western Commissionerate, Kanpur Nagar
on 29.07.2025.

14. In the said FIR, the fifth
respondent mentioned that his daughter, the
first petitioner, who had read up to Class
VII and aged seventeen years, in the night
11 All. Muskan & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1279
intervening 24/25.07.2025, has been taken
away by the second petitioner Abhishek
Rajput by blandishment. The first petitioner
is said to have taken away ornaments worth
Rs. 10,000/- and search for the missing girl
was
reported
to
be
underway.
The
petitioners' case is that the FIR is lodged on
absolutely bogus facts and against the
wishes of parties who have married
according to their freewill and wish. The
first petitioner's age, too, has been
incorrectly shown, indicating her to be a
minor aged seventeen years. In fact, she is
nineteen years old.

15. Aggrieved by the registration of
the aforesaid FIR, the second petitioner
filed a writ petition, being Criminal Misc.
Writ Petition No. 19047 of 2025, before
this Court, wherein, a direction was issued
for determination of the prosecutrix's age
through an ossification test. The writ
petition, aforesaid, was directed to come up
on 09.09.2025 and, till then, the second
petitioner, Abhishek Rajput, was granted
stay of arrest in connection with crime
under reference.

16. It is pointed out that an offence
under Section 3/4 of the Protection of
Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012,
has been added by the Investigating Officer
during investigation. It is also asserted in
the writ petition that a forged transfer
certificate, relating to the detenue, showing
her date of birth to be 21.12.2008, was
supplied to the Police by the fifth
respondent, leading to the addition of an
offence under Section 3/4 of the Protection
of Children from Sexual Offences Act,
2012.

17. It is argued by the learned Counsel
for the petitioners that the certificate
produced from the Shaheed Bhagat Singh
Junior High School, Bithoor, Kanpur Nagar
on 01.08.2025, mentioning that the detenue
studied there from Class IV to VI, and, the
transfer certificate issued, without a date,
are all bogus documents and do not reflect
the first petitioner's age correctly.

18. It is also submitted that the
ossification test that was done on 8th
September, 2025, pursuant to orders of the
Division Bench of this Court in Criminal
Misc. Writ Petition No. 19047 of 2025, has
led to a report from a board of doctors,
constituted by the Chief Medical Officer,
Kanpur, opining the detenue to be about
eighteen years old. A copy of the said
certificate dated 08.09.2025 is annexed to
the writ petition paper book at page no. 44.

19. Considering the provisions of
Section 94 (2) of the Juvenile Justice (Care
and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (for
short, 'the Juvenile Justice Act'), we
summoned the Principal, Shaheed Bhagat
Singh Junior High School, Bithoor, Kanpur
Nagar in person, together with the scholar
register
and transfer certificate form
relating to the detenue, in original, as also
the admission register. Smt. Rajni Dixit,
Principal, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Junior
High School, Bithoor, Kanpur Nagar has
appeared in person and produced the
original records that we ordered.

20. We have perused the scholars
register and transfer certificate form, in
original, bearing S.R. No. 5228 and
admission file no. 53. The scholar register
and transfer certificate form, in original,
shows that the detenue was admitted to
Class VI with the Shaheed Bhagat Singh
Junior High School, Bithoor, Kanpur Nagar
on 17.04.2019 and promoted to Class VII
on 20.03.2020. She read in Class VII from
01.04.2020 to 30.04.2020. Her name was
1280 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
then struck off the rolls of the school on
account of regular and consistent absence.
It is true, no doubt, that in the said scholars
register and transfer certificate form, drawn
on 17.04.2019, the detenue's date of birth
recorded is 20.04.2008 which would make
her an all of seventeen years, as on date.

21. We inquired of the Principal as to
the basis upon which the detenue's name
was entered in the scholars register and
transfer certificate form. She said that the
scholar was admitted to the Shaheed
Bhagat Singh Primary School in Class IV
on 10.04.2017 and passed her Class V on
30.03.2019 after which she was admitted to
Class VI on 17.04.2019, as the scholars
register and transfer certificate form shows.

22. We further enquired from the
Principal as to the basis on which the
detenue was admitted to Class IV on
10.04.2017. In response, she said that the
detenue was admitted on the basis of her
Class I report card from a certain V.M.
Public School, Mandhana, Kanpur relating
to the year 2013-14.

23. The Principal produced before us
the report card of Class I for the academic
session 2013-14 relating to the detenue
issued by the V.M. Public School,
indicating her date of birth to be
21.12.2008. The said report card, to its
face, is a bogus document, inasmuch as on
the left hand side, at the top of the card, is
mentioned Class I and the session is "20 -
2014". In the entries, lower down, the Class
mentioned is "U.K.G". Upon a perusal of
the contents of the said report card, the
Class mentioned is again "U.K.G." though,
on the outer flap, at the left hand side, the
Class mentioned is "I". Also, though the
Class mentioned is "U.K.G." and there is a
column for the Section assigned to the
student, but that is blank. A screenshot
copy of this card is as follows:

24. Surprisingly, the fifth respondent
produced another card relating to the
detenue from the same V.M. Public School,
Mandhana, Kanpur where, on the left hand
side of the outer flap of the card, the Class
mentioned
is
"U.K.G."
and
in
the
particulars of the student also the Class
mentioned is "U.K.G.", but the academic
session is 2012-2013. Inside the card also,
the Class mentioned is "U.K.G.". A
screenshot of this too is reproduced below:
11 All. Muskan & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1281

25. If we take it that the report card
from the V.M. Public School, Mandhana,
Kanpur, produced by the fifth respondent,
is the one which relates to U.K.G. and the
one produced by the Principal relates to
Class I, it is difficult to reconcile it in the
sense that the report card produced by the
Principal mentions on the top of the card,
on the left hand side, the Class as "Class I",
whereas in all other entries on the outer
flap as well as the contents of the card
inside, the Class mentioned is "U.K.G.".
These cards appear to have been secured by
the fifth respondent in some surreptitious
way and are documents of little fidelity.
They
are
utterly
undependable.
The
detenue's date of birth, mentioned on these
cards, is 21.12.2008. We do not know, on
what basis, the detenue's date of birth has
been entered in the rather conflicting report
cards issued by the V.M. Public School,
Mandhana, Kanpur.

26. So far as the Shaheed Bhagat
Singh Junior High School, Bithoor, Kanpur
Nagar is concerned, as well as their
primary sections, they say that they have
recorded the detenue's date of birth on the
basis of the Class I report card issued by
the V.M. Public School, Mandhana. We
have found this report card, from the V.M.
Public School to be utterly unreliable.
Therefore, the date of birth recorded by the
Shaheed Bhagat Singh Junior High School
in their records, for the detenue, turns
utterly unreliable.

27. We inquired of the Principal if any
birth certificate, relating to the detenue
from the Municipal Corporation or the
Panchayat or the school last attended,
properly so called, was produced by the
detenue's parents, at the time when she was
admitted to Class IV of the Shaheed Bhagat
Singh Junior High School. The Principal
answered in the negative and said that all
that she had to depend upon for the
detenue's age was her report card from the
V.M. Public School, Mandhana, Kanpur
relating to Class I. There is another feature
of infirmity about all these educational
testimonials.

28. The fifth respondent, represented
by his Counsel, Mr. Sanjay Srivastava,
wants us to believe, as he has already made
1282 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the Shaheed Bhagat Singh Junior High
School accept, the fact that the detenue,
after passing her Class I, did not read in
any school and was admitted to Class IV
straightaway. We are not minded to accept
this stand of the fifth respondent as well.
The reason is that unless there be some
very convincing explanation, in the current
day of formality and competitiveness in the
schools, it is difficult to visualise a scholar
reading up to Class I and then being
admitted straightaway to Class IV, without
studying in the three intervening classes. It
appears that the detenue did read in the
intervening classes, but the records there
did not suit the fifth respondent, for
whatever reasons, which he has not
produced not only before the Court, but
also the Shaheed Bhagat Singh Junior High
School, Bithoor, Kanpur Nagar.

29. In the totality of circumstances, we
are of opinion that whatever records, about
the detenue's date of birth have been
produced from the school records, be it of
Shaheed Bhagat Singh Junior High School,
Bithoor, Kanpur Nagar or V.M. Public
School,
Mandhana,
Kanpur
are
all
inaccurate and unreliable. They cannot be
accepted to determine the detenue's age.

30. In addition, there is another aspect
of the matter. It is true that the age of a
victim is to be determined in the same
manner as a juvenile under Section 94(2) of
the Juvenile Justice Act by virtue of
extension
of
the
principle
for
age
determination there to victims, by the
Supreme Court in Jarnail Singh v. State
of Haryana, (2013) 7 SCC 263. Section 94
of the Juvenile Justice Act reads:

"94.
Presumption
and
determination of Age.-(1) Where, it is
obvious to the Committee or the Board, based
on the appearance of the person brought
before it under any of the provisions of this
Act (other than for the purpose of giving
evidence) that the said person is a child, the
Committee or the Board shall record such
observation stating the age of the child as
nearly as may be and proceed with the
inquiry under section 14 or section 36, as the
case may be, without waiting for further
confirmation of the age.

(2) In case, the Committee or the
Board has reasonable grounds for doubt
regarding whether the person brought before
it is a child or not, the Committee or the
Board, as the case may be, shall undertake
the process of age determination, by seeking
evidence by obtaining-

(i) the date of birth certificate from
the school, or the matriculation or equivalent
certificate from the concerned examination
Board, if available; and in the absence
thereof;

(ii) the birth certificate given by a
corporation or a municipal authority or a
panchayat;

(iii) and only in the absence of (i)
and (ii) above, age shall be determined by an
ossification test or any other latest medical
age determination test conducted on the
orders of the Committee or the Board:

Provided such age determination
test conducted on the order of the Committee
or the Board shall be completed within fifteen
days from the date of such order.

(3) The age recorded by the
Committee or the Board to be the age of
person so brought before it shall, for the
purpose of this Act, be deemed to be the true
age of that person"

31. According to sub- Section (2) of
Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice Act, there
is a precedence to the class of evidence
about the age of a victim, like a juvenile.
The first preference, for the purpose of
11 All. Muskan & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1283
determining the age of a victim, is the date
of birth certificate from the school or the
matriculation or equivalent certificate from
the
examination
board
concerned,
if
available. If the aforesaid evidence is not
forthcoming, the birth certificate, given by
a Corporation or a Municipal Authority or a
Panchayat, is the next class of evidence that
is admissible to determine a victim's age. If
both these are not there, the age of the
victim may be determined by undertaking
an ossification test or any other latest
medial age determination test conducted
under
orders
of
the
Child
Welfare
Committee or the Juvenile Justice Board. It
goes without saying that this power is
always available to the Court, whether the
District Judge or this Court.

32. The next question is: what would
constitute a date of birth certificate from
the school, within the meaning of subSection (2) of Section 94 of the Juvenile
Justice Act? In P. Yuvaprakash v. State
Rep. By Inspector of Police, 2023 SCC
OnLine SC 846, it has been held by the
Supreme Court in paragraph nos. 14, 18
and 19:

"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.

............

18. Reverting to the facts of this
case, the headmaster of M's School, CW-1,
was summoned by the court and produced
a Transfer Certificate (Ex.C-1). This
witness produced a Transfer Certificate
Register containing M's name. He deposed
that she had studied in the school for one
year, i.e., 2009-2010 and that the date of
birth was based on the basis of the record
sheet given by the school where she studied
in
the
7th
standard.
DW-2
TMT
Poongothoi,
Headmaster
of
Chinnasoalipalayam Panchayat School,
answered the summons served by the court
and deposed that ?M? had joined her
school with effect from 03.04.2002 and that
her date of birth was recorded as
11.07.1997. She admitted that though the
date of birth was based on the birth
1284 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
certificate, it would normally be recorded
on the basis of horoscope. She conceded to
no knowledge about the basis on which the
document pertaining to the date of birth
was recorded. It is stated earlier on the
same issue, i.e., the date of birth, Thiru
Prakasam, DW-3 stated that the birth
register pertaining to the year 1997 was
not available in the record room of his
office.

19. It is clear from the above
narrative that none of the documents
produced during the trial answered the
description of ?the date of birth certificate
from the school? or ?the matriculation or
equivalent certificate? from the concerned
examination board or certificate by a
corporation, municipal authority or a
Panchayat. In these circumstances, it was
incumbent for the prosecution to prove
through
acceptable
medical
tests/examination that the victim's age was
below 18 years as per Section 94(2)(iii) of
the JJ Act. PW-9, Dr. Thenmozhi, Chief
Civil Doctor and Radiologist at the
General Hospital at Vellore, produced the
X-ray reports and deposed that in terms of
the examination of M, a certificate was
issued stating ?that the age of the said girl
would be more than 18 years and less than
20 years?. In the cross-examination, she
admitted that M's age could be taken as 19
years. However, the High Court rejected
this evidence, saying that ?when the precise
date of birth is available from out of the
school records, the approximate age
estimated by the medical expert cannot be
the determining factor?. This finding is, in
this court's considered view, incorrect and
erroneous. As held earlier, the documents
produced, i.e., a transfer certificate and
extracts of the admission register, are not
what Section 94(2)(i) mandates; nor are
they in accord with Section 94(2)(ii)
because DW-1 clearly deposed that there
were no records relating to the birth of the
victim, M. In these circumstances, the only
piece of evidence, accorded with Section 94
of the JJ Act was the medical ossification
test, based on several X-Rays of the victim,
and on the basis of which PW-9 made her
statement.
She
explained
the
details
regarding examination of the victim's
bones, stage of their development and
opined that she was between 18-20 years;
in cross-examination she said that the age
might be 19 years. Given all these
circumstances, this court is of the opinion
that the result of the ossification or bone
test was the most authentic evidence,
corroborated by the examining doctor, PW9."

33. It is evident in view of the holding
in P. Yuvaprakash (supra) that a scholar
transfer certificate or an entry in the
admission register or a sundry report card
cannot be regarded as a date of birth
certificate from the school, within the
meaning of sub-Section (2) of Section 94 of
the Juvenile Justice Act. Therefore, apart
from the doubt about the fidelity of
documents produced from the school
records, regarding the detenue's age, in
point of fact, we are of opinion that none of
those documents qualify as a date of birth
certificate within the meaning of subSection (2) of Section 94 of the Juvenile
Justice Act. These, therefore, cannot be
relied upon on both counts. The only
option, then left, by virtue of Section 94(2),
is to depend on the medical opinion about
age because, admittedly, a date of birth
certificate from the Corporation or the
Panchayat is not available for the detenue.
At least, neither the State nor the fifth
respondent have come up with a case that
there is a certificate issued by the
Municipal Corporation or the Panchayat
regarding her age.
11 All. Muskan & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1285

34. The petitioner's date of birth has
already been medically determined by a
board of doctors under the authority of the
Chief Medial Officer, Kanpur pursuant to
orders of this Court passed in Criminal
Misc. Writ Petition No. 19047 of 2025 on
28th August, 2025. The report of the
Medical Board dated 8th September, 2025,
that we have already alluded to, opines the
detenue to be aged about eighteen years on
the basis of an ossification test and other
medial tests as well. We, therefore, hold
that the detenue is a major aged eighteen
years, going by the principle that in case of
a medical estimation of age, there could be
a variation of two years on either side,
which is to be construed in a manner which
makes it exculpatory.

35. Muskan has been produced before
us by the State in compliance with the rule
nisi. Accordingly, we proceed to ascertain,
for the purpose of this petition, the wishes
of the detenue, Muskan. She has stated
before us thus:

"प्रश्ि: आपिा िाम ?

उत्तर: मुस्िाि ।

प्रश्ि: आपिे वपताजी िा िाम ?

उत्तर: श्री मिोज िुमार ।

प्रश्ि: आप कितिे ाल िी हैं ?

उत्तर: इक्िी ाल ।

प्रश्ि: अभी आप िहााँ े आयी हैं ?

उत्तर: िािपुर ।

प्रश्ि: िािपूर में िहााँ रह रही थी
आप ?

उत्तर: बुढिपुर में ।

प्रश्ि: बुढिपुर में कि िे पा रह
रही थी, कि ी िे घर में रह रही थी ?

उत्तर: मम्मी पापा िे पा ।

प्रश्ि: आप मम्मी पापा िे पा े
आयीिं हैं ?

उत्तर: िहीिं, अभी तो िारी नििेति े
आये हैं ।

प्रश्ि: आप िहााँ जािा चाहती हैं ?

उत्तर: ुराल ।

प्रश्ि: ुराल े क्या मतलब है,
कि िे पा ?

उत्तर: अपिे पनत और ा ुर िे
पा ।

प्रश्ि: िौि आपिे पनत हैं ?

उत्तर: असभर्ेि ।

प्रश्ि: आपिे पनत िा पूरा िाम क्या
है ?

उत्तर: असभर्ेि राजपूत ।

प्रश्ि: आप अपिे पापा मम्मी िे
पा जािा चाहती हैं ?

उत्तर: िहीिं ।"

36. In view of the detenue's stand, who
is a major, that she wants to go and stay
with her husband and in-laws, that is to say
the second petitioner, Abhishek Rajput,
there is absolutely no reason to detain her
in custody of the Government Children
Home (Girls), Unit-1, Swaroop Nagar,
Kanpur Nagar. She is a major and free to
go wherever she likes and stay with
whomsoever she wants, including her
husband, Abhishek Rajput.

37. In the circumstances, this habeas
corpus writ petition succeeds and is
allowed. The rule nisi is made absolute.
The detenue, Muskan, who is present in
1286 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Court, shall be set at liberty forthwith. She
is free to go wherever she likes and stay
with whomsoever she wants, including her
husband Abhishek Rajput. The police
personnel, who have brought her forth, are
discharged
of
their
assignment
immediately.

38. Let the original records, produced
by the Principal, Shaheed Bhagat Singh
Junior High School, Bithoor, Kanpur
Nagar, be returned to her.

39. Let this order be communicated to
the Commissioner of Police, Kanpur Nagar,
the Incharge/Superintendent, Government
Children Home (Girls), Unit-1, Swaroop
Nagar, Kanpur Nagar and the Station
House Officer, Police Station- Chaubepur,
District- Western Commissionerate Kanpur
Nagar through the learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar by the Registrar
(Compliance).
---------
(2025) 11 ILRA 1286
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 25.11.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE JASPREET SINGH, J.

Appeal Under Section 37 of Arbitration And
Conciliation Act 1996 No. 42 of 2025

National Highways Authority of India
 ...Appellant
Versus
Om Prakash Singh & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Abhishek Pathak

Counsel for the Respondents:
Prasiddha Narayan Singh

ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Whether the Court under Section 34 of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
exceeded
its
jurisdiction
by
re-appraising
evidence and interfering with the arbitral award.
2. Whether the Court erred in not invoking
Section 34(4) to remit the matter back to the
Arbitral Tribunal for curing defects.

HEADNOTES
Civil Law - Arbitration and Conciliation
Act, 1996 - Section - 34, 34(1), 34(4), -
National Highways Authority of India Act
(NHAI Act) - Section - 3-G - Appeal u/s
Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act
- assailing the Commercial Court, judgment -
whereby the petition preferred under section 34
of the Act filed by the respondent no. 1 has
been allowed and the matter has been remitted
for consideration afresh - Award under the
NHAI Act - Arbitration Case - Award was
set aside and remitted for reconsideration -
instant appeal - appellant pleaded that the
court exceeded its jurisdiction under Section
34 by re-appraising evidence and ignoring
Section 34(4) - while the respondents
opposed that the court merely addressed
disparity in compensation among contiguous
landholders without re-evaluating evidence -
Court, after considering precedents including
Kinnari Mullick v. Ghansyam Das Damani
(2018), Gayatri Balasamy v. ISG Novasoft
Technologies Ltd. (2025), and UHL Power
Co. Ltd. v. State of H.P. (2022), held that no
jurisdictional overreach was made, Section 34(4)
was inapplicable absent an application, and
parity in compensation justified remand -
accordingly, appeal is dismissed - however,
leaving the appellant to pursue remedies in the
arbitral proceedings.(Para - 26, 27, 28, 29)

Appeal Allowed. (E-11)
CASE LAW CITED
1. Kinnari Mullick v. Ghansyam Das Damani
(2018) 11 SCC 328
2. Hema Agarwal v. NHAI (2025:AHC:148001)
3. Chandra Kishori v. Union of India (2023 SCC
Online All 3950)
4.
Nitin
Maheshwari
v.
Union
of
India
(MANU/UP/4080/2023)
5.
Harish
Tripathi
v.
NHAI
(MANU/UP/4213/2023)
6.
Gayatri
Balasamy
v.
ISG
Novasoft
Technologies Ltd. (2025) 7 SCC 1