# X Revisionist v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2025) 11 ILRA 1462
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-11-26
- **Case number:** Criminal Revision No. 6244 of 2025
- **Bench:** Jai Prakash Tiwari
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/x-revisionist-v-state-of-u-p-anr-52762
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

G.A.

Issue for Consideration
Whether the Juvenile Justice Board and the
Appellate Court were justified in determining the
age of the revisionist-juvenile on the basis of
medical/radiological examination, ignoring the
High School certificate produced on record,
contrary to the mandatory hierarchy prescribed
under Section 94(2) of the Juvenile Justice
(Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.

Headnotes
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of
Children)
Act,
2015
-
s.94
-
Determination of age - Preference of
documentary evidence - High School
certificate - Ossification/medical test -
Stage for resort to medical opinion -
Statutory hierarchy - Patent error of law
- Orders set aside - Remand.

Held:

Section 94(2) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and
Protection of Children) Act, 2015 lays down a
clear
and
mandatory
sequence
for
determination of age. The date of birth
certificate from the school or matriculation or
equivalent
certificate
from
the
concerned
examination board is required to be considered
first, and only in the absence of such
documents, recourse can be taken to medical
age determination by ossification or other tests.
[Paras 6, 10]

In the present case, the High School certificate
of the revisionist-juvenile, recording his date of
birth as 12.12.2008, was available on record
and was duly produced before the Juvenile
Justice Board. Despite availability of such
documentary evidence falling under Section
94(2)(i), the Board proceeded to rely upon
medical/radiological reports to determine age,
which was contrary to the express statutory
mandate. [Paras 2, 10-11]

The Appellate Court also failed to notice the
mandatory preference accorded to documentary
evidence under Section 94(2) and mechanically
affirmed the order of the Juvenile Justice Board.
11 All. X Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1463
Such reliance on medical opinion, when valid
documentary evidence was available, amounted
to a patent error of law. [Paras 3-5, 10-11]

Medical opinion regarding age is not conclusive
and can be resorted to only as a last measure,
i.e., in the absence of documents specified
under Section 94(2)(i) and (ii). The approach
adopted by the courts below was therefore
legally unsustainable. [Paras 7-11]

Accordingly,
the
orders
dated
19.03.2025
passed
by
the
Juvenile
Justice
Board,
Saharanpur, and 25.08.2025 passed by the
Appellate Court were set aside, and the matter
was remanded to the competent court to decide
the issue of juvenility afresh, strictly in
accordance with law. [Paras 12-13]
Criminal revision was allowed. (E-14)

Case Law Cited
Jyoti Prakash Rai v. State of Bihar, AIR
2008 SC 1696 - relied on; Vishnu v. State
of Maharashtra, (2006) 1 SCC 283 - relied
on; Birad Mal Singhvi v. Anand Purohit,
AIR 1988 SC 1796 - relied on; Bhola
Bhagat v. State of Bihar, AIR 1998 SC 236
- relied on; Ravinder Singh Gorkhi v.
State of U.P., (2006) 5 SCC 584 - relied
on; State of Maharashtra v. Gajanan
Hemant Janardhan Wankhede, (2008) 8
SCC 38 - relied on; Babloo Pasi v. State
of Jharkhand and Another, AIR 2009 SC
314 - relied on; P. Yuvaprakash v. State
Rep. by Inspector of Police, 2023 INSC
676 - relied on; Rajni v. State of Uttar
Pradesh and Another, 2025 SCC OnLine SC
1183 - relied on.

List of Acts / Statutes
Juvenile
Justice
(Care
and
Protection
of
Children) Act, 2015; Indian Evidence Act, 1872;
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023; Arms Act, 1959.

List of Keywords
Juvenility; Determination of age; High School
certificate; Documentary evidence; Ossification
test; Medical opinion; Remand.

Case Arising From
Order dated 25.08.2025 passed by the Special
Judge (POCSO) / Additional Sessions Judge,
Saharanpur in Criminal Appeal No. 28 of 2025,
affirming the order dated 19.03.2025 passed by
the Juvenile Justice Board, Saharanpur in Misc.
Case No. 04 of 2025, arising out of Case Crime
No. 475 of 2025, under Sections 103(1), 3(5)
B.N.S. and Sections 3/25/27 Arms Act, Police
Station Rampur Maniharan, District S

## Text

1462 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
dignity and privacy, including refusing to
undergo a DNA test.

41. Usually in cases concerning
legitimacy, it is the child's dignity and
privacy that have to be protected, as they
primarily come under the line of fire.
Though in this instance, the child is a
major and is voluntarily submitting himself
to this test, he is not the only stakeholder
bearing personal interest in the results,
whatever they may be. The effects of social
stigma surrounding an illegitimate child
make their way into the parents' lives as
there may be undue scrutiny owing to the
alleged infidelity. It is in this backdrop that
the Appellant's right to privacy and dignity
have to be considered."

13. In the present case, the revisionist
has merely stated that his wife remained in
matrimonial house for few days and child is
not his biological child. The learned trial
court as well as learned appellate court
have given specific findings and there is no
illegality in passing the aforesaid orders.
The revision lacks merit and is accordingly
dismissed.
----------
(2025) 11 ILRA 1462
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 26.11.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE JAI PRAKASH TIWARI, J.

Criminal Revision No. 6244 of 2025

X ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Sunil Kumar Srivastava, Vinod Kumar
Srivastava
Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A.

Issue for Consideration
Whether the Juvenile Justice Board and the
Appellate Court were justified in determining the
age of the revisionist-juvenile on the basis of
medical/radiological examination, ignoring the
High School certificate produced on record,
contrary to the mandatory hierarchy prescribed
under Section 94(2) of the Juvenile Justice
(Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.

Headnotes
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of
Children)
Act,
2015
-
s.94
-
Determination of age - Preference of
documentary evidence - High School
certificate - Ossification/medical test -
Stage for resort to medical opinion -
Statutory hierarchy - Patent error of law
- Orders set aside - Remand.

Held:

Section 94(2) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and
Protection of Children) Act, 2015 lays down a
clear
and
mandatory
sequence
for
determination of age. The date of birth
certificate from the school or matriculation or
equivalent
certificate
from
the
concerned
examination board is required to be considered
first, and only in the absence of such
documents, recourse can be taken to medical
age determination by ossification or other tests.
[Paras 6, 10]

In the present case, the High School certificate
of the revisionist-juvenile, recording his date of
birth as 12.12.2008, was available on record
and was duly produced before the Juvenile
Justice Board. Despite availability of such
documentary evidence falling under Section
94(2)(i), the Board proceeded to rely upon
medical/radiological reports to determine age,
which was contrary to the express statutory
mandate. [Paras 2, 10-11]

The Appellate Court also failed to notice the
mandatory preference accorded to documentary
evidence under Section 94(2) and mechanically
affirmed the order of the Juvenile Justice Board.
11 All. X Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1463
Such reliance on medical opinion, when valid
documentary evidence was available, amounted
to a patent error of law. [Paras 3-5, 10-11]

Medical opinion regarding age is not conclusive
and can be resorted to only as a last measure,
i.e., in the absence of documents specified
under Section 94(2)(i) and (ii). The approach
adopted by the courts below was therefore
legally unsustainable. [Paras 7-11]

Accordingly,
the
orders
dated
19.03.2025
passed
by
the
Juvenile
Justice
Board,
Saharanpur, and 25.08.2025 passed by the
Appellate Court were set aside, and the matter
was remanded to the competent court to decide
the issue of juvenility afresh, strictly in
accordance with law. [Paras 12-13]
Criminal revision was allowed. (E-14)

Case Law Cited
Jyoti Prakash Rai v. State of Bihar, AIR
2008 SC 1696 - relied on; Vishnu v. State
of Maharashtra, (2006) 1 SCC 283 - relied
on; Birad Mal Singhvi v. Anand Purohit,
AIR 1988 SC 1796 - relied on; Bhola
Bhagat v. State of Bihar, AIR 1998 SC 236
- relied on; Ravinder Singh Gorkhi v.
State of U.P., (2006) 5 SCC 584 - relied
on; State of Maharashtra v. Gajanan
Hemant Janardhan Wankhede, (2008) 8
SCC 38 - relied on; Babloo Pasi v. State
of Jharkhand and Another, AIR 2009 SC
314 - relied on; P. Yuvaprakash v. State
Rep. by Inspector of Police, 2023 INSC
676 - relied on; Rajni v. State of Uttar
Pradesh and Another, 2025 SCC OnLine SC
1183 - relied on.

List of Acts / Statutes
Juvenile
Justice
(Care
and
Protection
of
Children) Act, 2015; Indian Evidence Act, 1872;
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023; Arms Act, 1959.

List of Keywords
Juvenility; Determination of age; High School
certificate; Documentary evidence; Ossification
test; Medical opinion; Remand.

Case Arising From
Order dated 25.08.2025 passed by the Special
Judge (POCSO) / Additional Sessions Judge,
Saharanpur in Criminal Appeal No. 28 of 2025,
affirming the order dated 19.03.2025 passed by
the Juvenile Justice Board, Saharanpur in Misc.
Case No. 04 of 2025, arising out of Case Crime
No. 475 of 2025, under Sections 103(1), 3(5)
B.N.S. and Sections 3/25/27 Arms Act, Police
Station Rampur Maniharan, District Saharanpur.

Appearance for Parties
For the Revisionist: Sri Sunil Kumar
Srivastava, Sri Vinod Kumar Srivastava
For the State: Learned A.G.A.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Jai Prakash Tiwari, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State
and perused the entire material available on
record.

2. This criminal revision has been filed
under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice
Act, 2015 for setting aside the order dated
25.08.2025 passed by learned Special
Judge (POCSO)/Additional Sessions Judge,
Room No. 13, Saharanpur in Criminal
Appeal No. 28 of 2025, titled X through its
natural guardian/mother vs. State of U.P.
and another and the order dated 19.3.2025
passed
by
Juvenile
Justice
Board,
Saharanpur in Misc. Case No. 04 of 2025;
arising out of Case Crime No. 475 of 2025,
under Sections 103(1), 3(5) B.N.S. and
Section 3/25/27 Arms Act, Police Station
Rampur Maniharan, District Saharanpur,
whereby
the
Juvenile
Justice
Board
determined the age of the revisionist on the
basis of radiological report/medical report
dated 27.02.2025 as well as 10.03.2025
instead of the date of birth mentioned in the
High School Marksheet of the revisionist as
'12.12.2008'.

3. Learned counsel for the revisionist
submits that a FIR regarding alleged
incident was lodged on 14.12.2024 against
the X Juvenile and others with the
allegations that on the same day at about
1464 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
08:00 AM, the son of the informant aged
about 17 years went at Chaudhary Medical
Stores, where he was sweeping at the shop.
At that time, the minor accused came with
country-made pistol and assaulted the son
of informant by which he received injuries
in his stomach, thereafter, he was admitted
in the hospital in serious condition and later
on died. It is submitted that at the time of
incident, the revisionist X Juvenile was
minor and he was falsely implicated in the
subject case and on the date of incident, he
was aged about 16 years and 2 days and as
per his educational certificates, his date of
birth is 12.12.2008, and there is no
discrimination of the date of birth in any
document. Thereafter, his mother was filed
an application for declaration of juvenility
of his son. It is next submitted that after
issuance of notices, the Juvenile Justice
Board vide its order dated 27.02.2025
directed the Chief Medical Officer, Gautam
Budh Nagar to medically examine the X
juvenile for determination of his age.
Thereafter, vide order dated 19.03.2025,
the Juvenile Justice Board, Saharanpur
determined the age of the minor as 17
years, 09 months and 4 days as per medical
report dated 10.03.2025 of the CMO
concerned. It is next submitted that being
aggrieved by the order of Juvenile Justice
Board, the revisionist filed a criminal
appeal on the ground that the date of birth
of the X Juvenile as mentioned in the high
school certificate should have been given
preference instead of determination of age
by medical examination of the minor. It is
further submitted that the appellate court
also failed to consider the above fact and
dismissed the appeal of the revisionist
affirming the order dated 19.03.2025
passed by Juvenile Justice Board. The order
of the appellate Court has been challenged
on behalf of the revisionist through his
natural guardian before this Court.

4. It is submitted by the learned
counsel
for
the
revisionist
that
the
impugned order has been passed against the
settled principles of law and against the
provisions of Section 94 of the Juvenile
Justice Act and therefore, the impugned
order is not sustainable in law.

5. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the
submissions made by the learned counsel
for the revisionist and has submitted that
the judgment of the appellate court is in
accordance with law.

6.
For
deciding
the
present
controversy, a perusal of Section 94 of the
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of
Children) Act, 2015 is required to be made,
which is as follows:-

"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-
11 All. X Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1465

(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."

7. Here, it would be necessary to
mention some legal principles propounded
by the Hon'ble Courts regarding the
determination of age of Juvenile (minor).

In Jyoti Prakash Rai vs. State of
Bihar reported in AIR 2008 SC 1696, the
Hon'ble Court in para '9' held that:-

"9. The 2000 Act is indisputably a
beneficial
legislation.
Principles
of
beneficial legislation, however, are to be
applied
only
for
the
purpose
of
interpretation of the statute and not for
arriving at a conclusion as to whether a
person is juvenile or not. Whether an
offender was a juvenile on the date of
commission of the offence or not is
essentially a question of fact which is
required to be determined on the basis of
the materials brought on records by the
parties. In absence of any evidence which
is relevant for the said purpose as
envisaged under Section 35 of the Indian
Evidence Act, the same must be determined
keeping in view the factual matrix involved
in each case. For the said purpose, not only
relevant materials are required to be
considered, the orders passed by the court
on earlier occasions would also be
relevant."

8. A court of law for the purpose of
determining the age of a party to the lis,
having regard to the provisions of Section
35 of the Evidence Act will have to apply
the same standard.

Relevant Section 35 of Indian
Evidence Act reads as under:-

"35. Relevancy of entry in public
[record
of
an
electronic
record]
[Substituted by Act 21 of 2000, Section 92
and
Sch.II,
for
"record"
(w.e.f.
17.10.2000).] made in performance of
duty.

An entry in any public or other
official book, register or [record or an
electronic record] [Substituted by Act 21 of
2000, Section 92 and Sch.II, for "record"
(w.e.f. 17.10.2000).], 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]
[Substituted by Act 21 of 2000, Section 92
and
Sch.II,
for
"record"
(w.e.f.
1466 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
17.10.2000)] is kept, is itself a relevant
fact."

9. In Vishnu vs. State of Maharashtra
reported in (2006) 1 SCC 283, Hon'ble the
Apex Court in para '20' opined that:-

"20. It is urged before us by Mr.
Lalit that the determination of the age of
the prosecutrix by conducting ossification
test is scientifically proved and, therefore,
the opinion of the doctor that the girl was
of 18-19 years of age should be accepted.
We are unable to accept this contention for
the reasons that the expert medical
evidence is not binding on the ocular
evidence. The opinion of the medical officer
is to assist the court as he is not a witness
of fact and the evidence given by the
medical officer is really of an advisory
character and not binding on the witness of
fact."

In Birad Mal Singhvi vs. Anand
Purohit reported in AIR 1988 SC 1796, the
Apex Court has held that:

"To
render
a
document
admissible under section 35 of the
Evidence Act, three conditions must be
satisfied, firstly, entry that is relied on must
be one in a public or other official book,
register or record; secondly, it must be an
entry stating a fact in issue or relevant fact;
and thirdly, it must be made by a public
servant in discharge of his official duty, or
any other person in performance of a duty
specially enjoined by law.An entry relating
to date of birth made in the school register
is relevant and admissible under section 35
of the Act, but the entry regarding the age
of 3 person in a school register is of not
much evidentiary value to prove the age of
the person in the absence of the material on
which the age was recorded."

In BholaBhagat vs. State of
Bihar [AIR 1998 SC 236], the Apex Court
has held that:-

"Keeping in view the beneficial
nature of the socially-oriented legislation,
it is an obligation of the court where such a
plea is raised to examine that plea with
care and it cannot fold its hands and
without
returning
a
positive
finding
regarding that plea, deny the benefit of the
provisions to an accused. The court must
hold an enquiry and return a finding
regarding the age, one way or the other.
We expect the High Courts and subordinate
courts to deal with such cases with more
sensitivity, as otherwise the object of the
Acts would be frustrated and the effort of
the Legislature to reform the delinquent
child and reclaim him as a useful member
of the society would be frustrated."

In Ravinder Singh Gorkhi vs.
State of U.P. [(2006) 5 SCC 584, it was
held by the Apex Court that:-

"21. Determination of the date of
birth of a person before a court of law,
whether in a civil proceeding or a criminal
proceeding, would depend upon the facts
and circumstances of each case. Such a
date of birth has to be determined on the
basis of the materials on records. It will be
a matter of appreciation of evidence
adduced by the parties. Different standards
having regard to the provision of Section
35 of the Evidence Act cannot be applied in
a civil case or a criminal case."

In Birad Mal Singhvi vs. Anand
Purohit (supra), the Apex Court has
further held that:

"Section
35
of
the
Indian
Evidence Act lays down that entry in any
11 All. X Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1467
public, official book, register, record
stating a fact in issue or relevant fact and
made by a public servant in the discharge
of his official duty specially enjoined by the
law of the country is itself the relevant fact.
To render a document admissible under
Section 35, three conditions must be
satisfied, firstly, entry that is relied on must
be one in a public or other official book,
register or record, secondly, it must be an
entry stating a fact in issue or relevant fact;
and thirdly, it must be made by a public
servant in discharge of his official duty, or
any other person in performance of a duty
specially enjoined by law. An entry relating
to date of birth made in the school register
is relevant and admissible under Section 35
of the Act but the entry regarding to the age
of a person in a school register is of not
much evidentiary value to prove the age of
the person in the absence of the material on
which the age was recorded."

In State of Maharashtra vs.
Gajanan Hemant Janardhan Wankhede
(2008) 8 SCC 38, in para '14', it is held
that:

"There is no requirement at the
time of admission documents are to be
produced as regards the age of the
student."

In Babloo Pasi vs. State of
Jharkhand and another [AIR 2009 SC
314], it is held that:-

"16.
Age
of
accusedDetermination- Medical Board's opinion
based on radiological examination is a
useful factor- However, opinion per se is
not conclusive proof of age."

In P. Yuvaprakash vs. State Rep.
By Inspector of Police [2023 INSC 676]
[Criminal Appeal No(s). 1898 of 2023, it
was held by the Apex Court that:-

"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.

15. In a recent decision, in
Rishipal Singh Solanki vs. State of Uttar
1468 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Pradesh & Ors.,3 this court outlined the
procedure to be followed in cases where
age determination is required. The court
was dealing with Rule 12 of the erstwhile
Juvenile Justice Rules (which is in pari
materia) with Section 94 of the JJ Act, and
held
as
follows:
?20. Rule 12 of the JJ Rules, 2007 deals
with the procedure to be followed in
determination of age. The juvenility of a
person in conflict with law had to be
decided prima facie on the basis of physical
appearance, or documents, if available. But
an inquiry into the determination of age by
the Court or the JJ Board was by seeking
evidence by obtaining: (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. Only in the
absence of either (i), (ii) and (iii) above,
the medical opinion could be sought from a
duly constituted Medical Board to declare
the age of the juvenile or child. It was also
provided that while determination was
being made, benefit could be given to the
child or juvenile by considering the age on
lower side within the margin of one year.

16. Speaking about provisions of
the Juvenile Justice Act, especially the
various options in Section 94 (2) of the JJ
Act, this court held in Sanjeev Kumar
Gupta vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh &
Ors that:

"Clause (i) of Section 94 (2) places
the date of birth certificate from the school
and the matriculation or equivalent certificate
from the concerned examination board in the
same category (namely (i) above). In the
absence thereof category (ii) provides for
obtaining
the
birth
certificate
of
the
corporation,
municipal
authority
or
panchayat. It is only in the absence of (i) and
(ii) that age determination by means of
medical
analysis
is
provided.
Section
94(2)(a)(i) indicates a significant change over
the provisions which were contained in Rule
12(3)(a) of the Rules of 2007 made under the
Act of 2000. Under Rule 12(3)(a)(i) the
matriculation or equivalent certificate was
given precedence and it was only in the event
of the certificate not being available that the
date of birth certificate from the school first
attended, could be obtained. In Section
94(2)(i) both the date of birth certificate from
the school as well as the matriculation or
equivalent certificate are placed in the same
category."

In Rajni vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
and another [2025 SCC OnLine SC 1183],
the Apex Court has held in paras 25.1 and 33
(33.2.3) that:-

"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
11 All. Avdhesh Kumar Vs. Smt. Dhruvi Chandra
1469
ossification test or by any other latest
medical age determination test conducted
on the orders of the child welfare
committee or the JJB."

33(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 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)."

10. A bare perusal of the aforesaid
section shows that only after the documents
provided under Sub Clause (i) or Sub Clause
(ii) of Section 94(2) of the Act are not
available, the ossification test of the accused
can be ordered. In the present case, the
documents as per sub-clause (i) were produced
before the Board but were not considered. As
per the aforesaid sub clauses only in the
absence of the documents mentioned subclause (i) or (ii) resort to ossification test
should be made. In the present case, the board
as well as Appellate Court committed patent
error of law in relying upon the ossification
test report as per sub-clause (iii) when the
documents produced before the board as per
sub clauses- (i) and (ii) were brought on
record.

11. So in the present case, medical
opinion was improperly relied upon despite
the existence of valid document, i.e. High
School certificate available on record.

12. Accordingly, the revision is allowed.

13. The order dated 25.08.2025 passed
by learned Special Judge (POCSO)/Additional
Sessions Judge, Room No. 13, Saharanpur in
Criminal Appeal No. 28 of 2025, titled X
through its natural guardian/mother vs. State
of U.P. and another and the order dated
19.3.2025 passed by Juvenile Justice Board,
Saharanpur in Misc. Case No. 04 of 2025;
arising out of Case Crime No. 475 of 2025,
under Sections 103(1), 3(5) B.N.S. and
Section 3/25/27 Arms Act, Police Station
Rampur Maniharan, District Saharanpur, are
hereby set aside and the matter be remanded
back to the court concerned to decide the
matter afresh, in accordance with law.

14. Office is directed to communicate
this order to the concerned court.
----------
(2025) 11 ILRA 1469
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 18.11.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ARINDAM SINHA, J.
THE HON'BLE SATYA VEER SINGH, J.

First Appeal Defective No. 541 of 2025

Avdhesh Kumar ...Appellant
Versus
Smt. Dhruvi Chandra ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellant: