# Sandeep Kumar Revisionist v. The State & Anr

- **Citation:** (2024) 3 ILRA 11
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-03-18
- **Case number:** Criminal Revision No. 10 of 2021
- **Bench:** Subhash Vidyarthi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sandeep-kumar-revisionist-v-the-state-anr-51530
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

Criminal Law -Juvenile Justice (Care and
Protection of Children) Act, 2000 - Section
7A, Rule 12(3) of 2007 Rules - Juvenile
Justice (Care and Protection of Children)
Act, 2015 - Section 94 - Determination of
Juvenility
-
Priority
of
Educational
Documents
-
Evidence
Act,
1872
-
Sections 35 & 114 - Criminal Revision -
Section 397/401 Cr.P.C.
The revisionist challenged the orders dated
01.12.2020 (Additional Sessions Judge/Special
Judge POCSO Act, Lucknow) and 22.12.2020
(Juvenile Justice Board, JJB) determining the
opposite party No. 2 as a juvenile in Case Crime
No. 2013 of 2015 under Sections 302/120B IPC.
The revisionist's FIR alleged that the opposite
party No. 2, his uncle, murdered his father. The
opposite
party
No.
2
claimed
juvenility,
supported by school records initially showing his
date of birth as 07.07.2002, later corrected to
12.07.1997 due to an error. The JJB initially
ordered a medical examination, which estimated
the age as 25 years, suggesting majority on the
incident date (18.05.2015). The appellate court
set aside the JJB's order, prioritizing educational
records under Section 94 of the 2015 Act (or
Rule 12(3) of 2007 Rules under the 2000 Act,
applicable at the time), and remanded the
matter. The JJB then declared the opposite
party No. 2 a juvenile based on the corrected
date of birth (12.07.1997). Held: The court,
citing Ashwani Kumar Saxena Vs St. of M.P.
((2012) 9 SCC 750), Abuzar Hossain Vs St. of
W.B. ((2012) 10 SCC 489), Rishipal Singh
Solanki Vs St. of U.P. ((2022) 8 SCC 602), and
Manoj Vs St. of Har. ((2022) 6 SCC 187), upheld
the priority of educational records under Rule
12(3)(a) over other evidence like voter lists or
medical opinions, unless proven fabricated. The
headmistress's correction was credible, and the
parivar register's vague entry was insufficient.
Sections 35 and 114 of the Evidence Act
supported the reliability of school records. The
JJB's order, compliant with the appellate
remand and Rule 12(3), was lawful.

Revision was dismissed.

Case Law Cited:

## Text

3 All. Sandeep Kumar Vs. The State & Anr.
11
(2024) 3 ILRA 11
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 18.03.2024
BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

Criminal Revision No. 10 of 2021

Sandeep Kumar ...Revisionist
Versus
The State & Anr. ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Ajay Kumar

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A., Abhishek Dwivedi, Anjani Kumar
Misra, Jagat Pal Singh, Nadeem Murtaza,
Puneet Saxena, Santosh Kumar Tirpathi,
Surekha Patel

Criminal Law -Juvenile Justice (Care and
Protection of Children) Act, 2000 - Section
7A, Rule 12(3) of 2007 Rules - Juvenile
Justice (Care and Protection of Children)
Act, 2015 - Section 94 - Determination of
Juvenility
-
Priority
of
Educational
Documents
-
Evidence
Act,
1872
-
Sections 35 & 114 - Criminal Revision -
Section 397/401 Cr.P.C.
The revisionist challenged the orders dated
01.12.2020 (Additional Sessions Judge/Special
Judge POCSO Act, Lucknow) and 22.12.2020
(Juvenile Justice Board, JJB) determining the
opposite party No. 2 as a juvenile in Case Crime
No. 2013 of 2015 under Sections 302/120B IPC.
The revisionist's FIR alleged that the opposite
party No. 2, his uncle, murdered his father. The
opposite
party
No.
2
claimed
juvenility,
supported by school records initially showing his
date of birth as 07.07.2002, later corrected to
12.07.1997 due to an error. The JJB initially
ordered a medical examination, which estimated
the age as 25 years, suggesting majority on the
incident date (18.05.2015). The appellate court
set aside the JJB's order, prioritizing educational
records under Section 94 of the 2015 Act (or
Rule 12(3) of 2007 Rules under the 2000 Act,
applicable at the time), and remanded the
matter. The JJB then declared the opposite
party No. 2 a juvenile based on the corrected
date of birth (12.07.1997). Held: The court,
citing Ashwani Kumar Saxena Vs St. of M.P.
((2012) 9 SCC 750), Abuzar Hossain Vs St. of
W.B. ((2012) 10 SCC 489), Rishipal Singh
Solanki Vs St. of U.P. ((2022) 8 SCC 602), and
Manoj Vs St. of Har. ((2022) 6 SCC 187), upheld
the priority of educational records under Rule
12(3)(a) over other evidence like voter lists or
medical opinions, unless proven fabricated. The
headmistress's correction was credible, and the
parivar register's vague entry was insufficient.
Sections 35 and 114 of the Evidence Act
supported the reliability of school records. The
JJB's order, compliant with the appellate
remand and Rule 12(3), was lawful.

Revision was dismissed.

Case Law Cited:

1. Ashwani Kumar Saxena Vs St. of M.P., (2012)
9 SCC 750

2. Abuzar Hossain Vs St. of W.B., (2012) 10 SCC
489

3. Rishipal Singh Solanki Vs St. of U.P., (2022) 8
SCC 602

4. Manoj Vs St. of Har., (2022) 6 SCC 187

5. Babloo Pasi Vs St. of Jharkhand, (2008) 13
SCC 133

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

1. Heard Sri Ajay Kumar, the learned
counsel for the revisionist, Sri Anurag
Verma, the learned AGA-I for the State and
Sri Santosh Kumar Tripathi, the learned
counsel for the opposite party no. 2.

2. By means of the instant revision
filed under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C., the
revisionist has challenged validity of an
order dated 01.12.2020 passed by the
12 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Additional Session Judge/Special Judge
POCSO Act, Lucknow in Criminal Appeal
No. 251 of 2020 whereby the appeal was
allowed, the order dated 09.10.2020 passed
by the Juvenile Justice Board in Misc. Case
No. 11/2020 arising out of Case Crime No.
2013 of 2015, under Section 302/120B
IPC, Police Station Chinhat, Lucknow, was
set aside and the matter was remitted to the
Juvenile Justice Board to decide the age of
the delinquent on the basis of his date of
birth
mentioned
in
his
educational
certificate, unless the same is not believable
for any cogent reason, in accordance with
the provision contained in Section 94 of the
Juvenile Justice Act, 2015. The revisionist
has also challenged validity of the order
dated 22.12.2020 passed by the Juvenile
Justice Board in the aforesaid case deciding
the claim of juvenility of the accused in
furtherance of the remand order dated
01.12.2020 and holding him to be a
juvenile.

3. Briefly stated, facts of the case
are that the revisionist had filed FIR No.
192/2015 in Police Station Chinhat,
Lucknow under Sections 302, 120-B IPC
against the respondent no. 2 and his
father Awadh Ram, alleging that the
opposite party no. 2 is uncle of the
revisionist, the revisionist's father had
sold away some land for a very meager
consideration,
due
to
which
the
revisionist was annoyed and he came to
the complainant's house at about 01:30
p.m. on 18.05.2015 and asked the
revisionist's father that the temple's priest
was calling him and he took the
revisionist's
father
with
him.
The
revisionist and his brother were also
following them and they saw that the
opposite party no. 2 assaulted the revisionist's
father with a Banka (a sharp edged tool) on
his neck. The revisionist alleged that the
opposite party no. 2 had killed his father
under a conspiracy with the father of the
accused.

4. The opposite party no. 2 claimed that
he was a juvenile whereas the revisionist
opposed this claim. The juvenile justice board
decided this issue by means of an order dated
09.10.2020 wherein it is recorded that the
headmistress of Primary School Saraisheikh,
Chinhat had produced the original admission
form, transfer certificate and admission
register before the Juvenile Justice Board and
had stated that as per the aforesaid
documents, the date of birth of the opposite
party no. 2 is 07.07.2002. However, the
headmistress of the aforesaid school appeared
again and stated that the date of birth of the
revisionist as entered in the school records is
12.07.1997 and she stated that earlier she had
erroneously produced the documents of
another student Shahiba Khatoon.

5. The revisionist filed an application
for summoning the parivar register of the
respondent no. 2. He submitted copies of voter
list of Gram Panchayat Saraiksheikh as per
which the age of the opposite party no. 2 was
23 years. The revisionist also produced a list of
Pradhan Mantri Jan Aryogya beneficiaries
which mentioned the age of the opposite party
no. 2 to be 26 years.

6. The board allowed the application for
summoning of pariwar register and the Gram
Panchayat Vikas Adhikari, Gram Panchayat
Saraisheikh Block Chinhat Lucknow appeared
before the Board and produced pariwar register,
in which the date of birth/ age of the revisionist
was mentioned as 17 years. However, the said
witness stated that he does not know as to
when this entry was made in the register.

7. The Juvenile Justice Board took
into consideration the discrepancy in the
3 All. Sandeep Kumar Vs. The State & Anr.
13
date of birth of the opposite party no. 2
mentioned in various records and found
that his date of birth mentioned in the
educational documents i.e. 12.09.1997, is
not believable and the opposite party no. 2
should be examined by a medical board to
ascertain his age.

8. The Medical Board examined the
opposite party no. 2 on 16.10.2020 and
opined his age to be about 25 years, from
which it appears that on the date of the
incident, the accused a major.

9. The accused challenged the
aforesaid order dated 09.10.2020 passed by
the Juvenile Justice Board by filing
Criminal Appeal No. 251/2020, which was
decided by the learned Additional Sessions
Judge/
Special
Judge
POCSO
Act,
Lucknow by means of the impugned
judgment and order dated 01.12.2020.

10. The appellate court held that the
headmistress of the primary school had
earlier stated the date of birth of the
opposite party no. 2 to be 07.07.2002 but
later she clarified that the aforesaid date
was mentioned erroneously on the basis of
the documents of another student Sahiba
Khatoon. She corrected the mistake and
said that as per the school records, date of
birth of the applicant is 12.07.1997 and the
opposite party no. 2 had taken admission to
the school on 07.07.2002. The appellate
court
found
the
testimony
of
the
headmistress and the documents produced
by her to be believable.

11. The appellate court further held
that Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care
and Protection of Children) Act, 2015
provides that for determination of age of
juvenile, the date of birth mentioned in the
educational documents will be given
priority above other evidences and the
Juvenile Justice Board does not have an
option to ignore this evidence and to
proceed to ascertain the date of birth of the
accused on the basis of material which
finds place at lower priority in Section 94
of the Act. Accordingly, the appellate court
set aside the order dated 09.10.2020 passed
by
the
Juvenile
Justice
Board
and
remanded the matter to the Board, for
deciding it afresh keeping in view the date
of birth of the accused mentioned in his
educational documents, unless the same are
not believable for any valid reason.

12. In compliance of the aforesaid
order dated 01.12.2020, the Juvenile Justice
Board passed the impugned order dated
22.12.2020 holding the date of birth of the
accused to be 12.07.1997 as mentioned in
his educational documents.

13. The learned AGA hs placed
reliance on a decision of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Manoj v.
State of Haryana: 2022 6 SCC 187.

14. The incident, from which the
present
case
arises,
took
place
on
18.05.2015. The Juvenile Justice (Care and
Protection of Children) Act, 2015 came into
force on 15.01.2016 VideS.O. 110(E),
dated 12.01.2016. On the date of the
incident,
Juvenile
Justice
(Care
and
Protection of Children) Act, 2000was in
force and the following provision of the Act
are relevant for the present matter: -

(k) "juvenile" or "child"
means a person who has not completed
eighteenth year of age;

(l) "juvenile in conflict with law"
means a juvenile who is alleged to have
committed
an
offence
and
has
not
completed eighteenth year of age as on the
date of commission of such offence;
14 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
* * *

7-A. Procedure to be followed
when claim of juvenility is raised before
any court.-(1) Whenever a claim of
juvenility is raised before any court or a
court is of the opinion that an accused
person was a juvenile on the date of
commission of the offence, the court shall
make an enquiry, take such evidence as
may be necessary (but not an affidavit) so
as to determine the age of such person, and
shall record a finding whether the person is
a juvenile or a child or not, stating his age
as nearly as may be:

Provided that a claim of juvenility
may be raised before any court and it shall
be recognised at any stage, even after final
disposal of the case, and such claim shall
be determined in terms of the provisions
contained in this Act and the rules made
thereunder, even if the juvenile has ceased
to be so on or before the date of
commencement of this Act.

(2) If the court finds a person to
be a juvenile on the date of commission of
the offence under sub-section (1), it shall
forward the juvenile to the Board for
passing appropriate order, and the sentence
if any, passed by a court shall be deemed to
have no effect.

15. From a reading of Section 7A, it
becomes obvious is that whenever a claim
of juvenility is raised, an inquiry has to be
made and such inquiry would take place by
receiving
evidence
which
would
be
necessary, so as to determine the age of
such person.

16. The procedure to be followed
for the determination of age is provided
under Rule 12(3)(b) of the 2007 Rules,
which reads as:

"12. Procedure to be followed in
determination of age.-(3) In every case
concerning a child or juvenile in conflict
with law, the age determination inquiry
shall be conducted by the court or the
Board or, as the case may be, the
Committee
by
seeking
evidence
by
obtaining-

(a)(i)
the
matriculation
or
equivalent certificates, if available; and in
the absence whereof;

(ii) the date of birth certificate
from the school (other than a play school)
first attended; and in the absence whereof;

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

(b) and only in the absence of
either (i), (ii) or (iii) of clause (a) above,
the medical opinion will be sought from a
duly constituted Medical Board, which will
declare the age of the juvenile or child. In
case exact assessment of the age cannot be
done, the Court or the Board or, as the case
may be, the Committee, for the reasons to
be recorded by them, may, if considered
necessary, give benefit to the child or
juvenile by considering his/her age on
lower side within the margin of one year.
and,

while passing orders in such case
shall, after taking into consideration such
evidence as may be available, or the
medical opinion, as the case may be, record
a finding in respect of his age and either of
the evidence specified in any of the clauses
(a)(i), (ii),

(iii) or in the absence
whereof, clause (b) shall be the conclusive
proof of the age as regards such child or
the juvenile in conflict with law."

17. Sub-clause (3) of the aforesaid
Rule
clearly
mandates
that
while
conducting an inquiry about the juvenility
of an accused, the Juvenile Justice Board
would seek evidence by obtaining the
matriculation or equivalent certificates and
3 All. Sandeep Kumar Vs. The State & Anr.
15
in the absence whereof the date of birth
certificate from the school first attended
and in absence whereof the birth certificate
given by a corporation or a Municipal
authority or a Panchayat. It is made clear
by sub-clause (b) that only in the absence
of the aforesaid three documents, medical
information would be sought from a duly
constituted Medical Board which will
declare the age of the juvenile or child.
Thus, it is only in the absence of the
aforesaid documents that the Juvenile
Justice
Board
can
ask
for
medical
information/ossification test.

18.

In
Ashwani
Kumar
Saxenav.State of M.P.,(2012) 9 SCC 750,
the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that:-

"32."Age determination inquiry"
contemplated under Section 7-A of the Act
read with Rule 12 of the 2007 Rules
enables the court to seek evidence and in
that process, the court can obtain the
matriculation or equivalent certificates, if
available. Only in the absence of any
matriculation or equivalent certificates, the
court needs to obtain the date of birth
certificate from the school first attended
other than a play school. Only in the
absence of matriculation or equivalent
certificate or the date of birth certificate
from the school first attended, the court
needs to obtain the birth certificate given
by a corporation or a municipal authority
or a panchayat (not an affidavit but
certificates or documents). The question
of obtaining medical opinion from a duly
constituted Medical Board arises only if
the
abovementioned
documents
are
unavailable. In case exact assessment of
the age cannot be done, then the court, for
reasons to be recorded, may, if considered
necessary, give the benefit to the child or
juvenile by considering his or her age on
lower side within the margin of one year.
* * *

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

41.This
Court
in
Babloo
Pasiv.State of Jharkhand(2008) 13 SCC
133held, in a case where the accused had
failed to produce evidence/certificate in
support of his claim, medical evidence can
be called for. The Court held that:

"22. ... The medical evidence as
to the age of a person, though a very useful
guiding factor, is not conclusive and has to
be considered along with other cogent
evidence."

This Court set aside the order of
the High Court and remitted the matter to
the Chief Judicial Magistrate heading the
Board to redetermine the age of the
accused."
(Emphasis supplied)
16 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

19. It is also relevant to note of the
provisions contained in Sections 35 and
114 of the Evidence Act, which provide as
follows:-

"35. Relevancy of entry in public
record or an electronic record], made in
performance of duty.-An entry in any
public or other official book, register or
record or an electronic record, stating a
fact in issue or relevant fact, and made by a
public servant in the discharge of his
official duty, or by any other person in
performance of a duty specially enjoined by
the law of the country in which such book,
register or record or an electronic record is
kept, is itself a relevant fact.
* * *

114.
Court
may
presume
existence of certain facts.-The Court may
presume the existence of any fact which it
thinks likely to have happened, regard
being had to the common course of natural
events, human conduct and public and
private business, in their relation to the
facts of the particular case.

Illustrations

The Court may presume-
* * *

(e) that judicial and official acts
have been regularly performed;

(f) that the common course of
business has been followed in particular
cases;

But the Court shall also have
regard to such facts as the following, in
considering whether such maxims do or do
not apply to the particular case before it-

as to illustration (e)-a judicial
act, the regularity of which is in question,
was
performed
under
exceptional
circumstances;

as to illustration (f)-the question
is whether a letter was received. It is shown
to have been posted, but the usual course of
the post was interrupted by disturbances;
* * *

20. Thus the entry made in the School
Records of Government Primary School in
which the accused has studied, will not
only be relevant as per the provision
contained in Section 35 of the Evidence
Act, it will be presumed to be correct under
Section 114 of the Evidence Act. As the
date of birth has been certified by the Head
Mistress of the primary school in which the
accused had studied, which is mentioned in
Rule 12 (3) (a) (ii), the Court or the
Juvenile Justice Board could not have
proceeded to consider the birth certificate
given the panchayat or the medical opinion.

21. In Abuzar Hossain v. State of
W.B.,(2012) 10 SCC 489, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court summarized the legal
position in this regard in the following
words:-

"39.5.The court where the plea of
juvenility is raised for the first time should
always be guided by the objectives of the
2000 Act and be alive to the position that
the beneficent and salutary provisions
contained in the 2000 Act are not defeated
by the hypertechnical approach and the
persons who are entitled to get benefits of
the 2000 Act get such benefits. The courts
should not be unnecessarily influenced by
any general impression that in schools the
parents/guardians understate the age of
their wards by one or two years for future
benefits or that age determination by
medical examination is not very precise.
The matter should be considered prima
facie on the touchstone of preponderance
of probability.
(Emphasis supplied)
3 All. Sandeep Kumar Vs. The State & Anr.
17

22.

Although
Rishipal
Singh
Solankiv.State of U.P.,(2022) 8 SCC 602is
a case involving the provisions of the
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of
Children) Act, 2015, the following general
principles of law summarized in that case
would serve as guiding principles which
would apply to the present case also:-

"33.3.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 theJJ Rules, 2007made
under theJJ Act, 2000or sub-section (2) of
Section94of theJJ 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.
* * *

33.6. 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
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
Section94(2)of theJJ Act, 2015."
(Emphasis supplied)

23. In Manoj v. State of Haryana:
(2022) 6 SCC 187 relied upon by the
learned A.G.A., it was held that: -

"41....the plea of juvenility has to
be raised in a bonafide and truthful
manner. If the reliance is on a document to
seek juvenility which is not reliable or
dubious in nature, the appellant cannot be
treated to be juvenile keeping in view that
the Act is a beneficial legislation. As also
held inBabloo Pasi v.State of Jharkhand,
(2008) 13 SCC 133, the provisions of the
statute are to be interpreted liberally but
18 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the benefit cannot be granted to the
appellant who has approached the Court
with untruthful statement."

24. When we examine the facts of the
present case in light of the law laid down in
the above mentioned cases, it appears that
the Primary School Saraisheikh, Chinhat
had produced the original admission form,
transfer certificate and admission register
before the Juvenile Justice Board and had
stated that as per the aforesaid documents,
the date of birth of the opposite party no. 2
is 07.07.2002. However, the headmistress
of the aforesaid school appeared again
and stated that the date of birth of the
revisionist as entered in the school
records is 12.07.1997 and she stated
that
earlier
she
had
erroneously
produced the documents of another
student Shahiba Khatoon.

25. The parivar register mentions
the age of the accused as 17 years,
without mentioning the date or year in
which
this
entry
was
made
and,
therefore, this entry does not prove the
age of the accused on the date of the
incident.

26. The discrepancy in date of
birth mentioned in school records as
mentioned in Rule 12 (3) (a) (ii) of the
2007 Rules with the age of the accused
as per the Voter List or the List of
Pradhan
Mantri
Jan
Aryogya
beneficiaries will not invalidate the date
of birth, as the later documents do not
find place in Rule 12 (3) of the 2007
Rules. The opinion of Medical Board
regarding age of the accused could only
have been called for in case any
documents mentioned in Rule 12 (3) (a)
was not available, which is not the case
here.

27. The appellate court had held
that the headmistress of the primary
school had earlier stated the date of
birth of the opposite party no. 2 to be
07.07.2002 but later she clarified that
the
aforesaid
date
was
mentioned
erroneously
on
the
basis
of
the
documents of another student Sahiba
Khatoon. She corrected the mistake and
said that as per the school records, date
of birth of the applicant is 12.07.1997
and the opposite party no. 2 had taken
admission to the school on 07.07.2002.
The appellate court found the testimony
of the headmistress and the documents
produced by her to be believable. The
appellate court had set aside the order
dated 09.10.2020 passed by the Juvenile
Justice Board and remanded the matter
to the Board, for deciding it afresh
keeping in view the date of birth of the
accused mentioned in his educational
documents, unless the same are not
believable for any valid reason. This
order was not challenged by the
revisionist.

28. In compliance of the aforesaid
remand order dated 01.12.2020 passed
by the appellate Court, the Juvenile
Justice Board passed the impugned
order dated 22.12.2020 holding the date
of birth of the accused to be 12.07.1997
as
mentioned
in
his
educational
documents,
which
finding
is
in
accordance
with
the
provisions
contained in Rule 12 (3) (a) of the
Rules of 2007.

29. Therefore, there is no illegality
in the impugned order dated 22.12.2020
passed by the Juvenile Justice Board
warranting interference by this Court in
exercise of its Revisional Jurisdiction.
3 All. Akhilesh Vs. The State of U.P. & Anr.
19

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

THE HON'BLE RAM MANOHAR NARAYAN
MISHRA, J.

Criminal Revision No. 105 of 2021

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

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

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A.

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

Criminal revision allowed.

List of Cases Cited:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4. The instant Criminal Revision has
been preferred by the revisionist/accused
against the judgment and order dated
04.12.2020 passed by learned Session