In a criminal revision challenging the rejection of juvenility, the High Court examined conflicting school register entries. Relying on the date from the first admission (2000), the revisionist was held major. The revision was dismissed.
Criminal Revision dismissed; rejection of juvenility claim maintained; accused held to be a major.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:142942
Court No. - 80
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1386 of 2022
Revisionist :- X- Juvenile Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Radhey Shyam Shukla,Vipul Shukla
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.
Board was confirmed while dismissing the appeal. The orders passed by learned J.J. Board as well as the learned appellate court cannot be said to be lawful in the eyes of law but being illegal are likely to be set aside, therefore, requested to set aside the orders passed by the learned J.J. Board as well as learned appellate court and allow this criminal revision while declaring revisionist as juvenile.
6. Section 94 of the Act provides as under regarding the 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.
serial No. 1140 date of birth of the child was entered as 05.06.2000 at the time of admission in class first on 13.07.2006 (Exhibit Kha 8).
14. In this regard Para 14 and 15 of the judgment in the case of Sanjeev Kumar Gupta Vs. State of U.P and others AIR 2019 Supreme Court 4364 is noteworthy which is as under:-
14. Now it is in this background that it becomes necessary for the Court to determine whether the High Court, in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction, was justified in reversing the view of the learned Sessions Judge that the second respondent was not a juvenile on the date of the incident. In seeking to place reliance on the date of birth (17 December 1998) recorded in the CBSE matriculation certificate, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the second respondent has submitted that under the provisions of Rule 12(3)(a) the said certificate has precedence over any other evidentiary document. In the course of the hearing of the appeal, we directed the CBSE to produce its records and to file an affidavit indicating the basis on which the date of birth was recorded in the matriculation certificate. The affidavit filed by the CBSE
indicates that the date of birth in the records maintained by the CBSE was recorded purely on the basis of the final list of students forwarded by Maa Anjani Senior Secondary School, Etah Road, Shikohabad. The affidavit of the Assistant Secretary, CBSE states:
"… Maa Anjani Senior Secondary School, Etah Road, Shikohabad, sent Final list of Students registered for Class IX (2011-12) as (Eligible for Class X Examination Year 2013) of the School to the Central Board of Secondary Education, Regional office, Allahabad. In the said Final List of Students registered for Class IX (2011-12) (Eligible for Class X Examination for year – 2013) at Serial No 00068 shows the name of Puneet Yadav son of Shri Rameshwar Singh and Smt Vishesh Devi and his date of birth has been shown as 17.12.1998 which contain the Signature and Photograph of Puneet Yadav. The date of Entry has been shown as 08.09.2011."
"… the Certificate for Secondary School Examination (Session 2011-13) (true copy of which was been appended as Annexure CA-1 received by the Central Board of Secondary Education with the Order dated 16.04.2019 of this Hon'ble Court) showing the Date of Birth of Puneet Yadav as 17.12.1998 was issued on the basis of aforementioned records of the Central Board of Secondary Education."
CBSE has stated before this Court that the date recorded in the matriculation certificate was purely on the basis of the final list of students forwarded by the Headmaster of Maa Anjani Senior Secondary School, Shikohabad. The Headmaster of the Maa Anjani Senior Secondary School, Shikohabad deposed during the enquiry before the JJB, Firozabad. In the course of her examination, Headmaster Dipti Solanki stated:
The Headmaster further stated:
"...The father did not produce any record at the time of admission in respect of the date of birth of the student. They would have been asked to produce the record of class 4 at the time of admission but they did not. I cannot tell the reason thereof. The students are admitted without any document upto class 5."
The above deposition indicates that the second respondent was admitted to Maa Anjani Senior Secondary School, Shikohabad in the fifth standard and was a student of the school until he completed his matriculation. The second respondent attended the Saket Vidyasthali, Jedajhal, Firozabad until the fourth standard. The school register and transfer certificate form of that school specifically contains an entry in regard to the date of birth of the second respondent as 17 December 1995. Mr
Ravindra Singh, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the second respondent has urged that the discrepancies which have been brought out in the course of the cross-examination of the former Manager of the school would indicate that there is a doubt in regard to the authenticity of that certificate. However, in our view, what must weigh against the second respondent's submission is that the date of birth which has been recorded in the certificate of the Saket Vidya Sthali completely matches the date of birth which was voluntarily disclosed by the second respondent both while obtaining his driving licence as well as the Aadhaar card. In both those documents, the originals of which were seized during the course of the investigation and have been produced before this Court, the date of birth is reflected as 17 December 1995. The driving license and the Aadhaar card are not standalone documents. The submission of the learned senior counsel that the date of birth in those documents may have been furnished by the accused to obtain an undue advantage cannot simply be accepted since it tallies with the date of birth indicated in the school records of Saket Vidya Sthali school. It is evident from the above analysis that the date of birth which was forwarded in the roll of students of Maa Anjani Senior Secondary School, Shikohabad was the sole basis of the date of birth which was recorded in the matriculation certificate. The date of birth in the records of Maa Anjani Senior Secondary School where the second respondent was a student from Class V to Class X is without any underlying document, as stated by the Principal in the course of the enquiry before the JJB. On the other hand, there is a clear and unimpeachable evidence in the form of the date of birth which has been recorded in the records of Saket Vidya Sthali school which is supported by the voluntary disclosure made by the second respondent while obtaining both the Aadhaar card and the driving licence. The High Court reversed the findings of the Sessions Judge purely on the basis of the matriculation certificate. For the reasons which we have indicated, the date of birth as reflected therein cannot be accepted as authentic or credible. Once we come to the conclusion, as we have, that the date of birth of the second respondent is 17 December 1995, he was not entitled to the claim of juvenility as of the date of the alleged incident which took place on 18 August 2015.
15. For the above reasons, we allow the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment and order of the High Court dated 14 November 2018. Criminal Revision 2952 of 2017 shall in consequence stand dismissed. The order passed by the Sessions Judge, confirming the decision of the JJB rejecting the claim of juvenility is accordingly maintained. The second respondent shall accordingly be dealt with in accordance with law on the basis of the finding recorded in the present judgment, rejecting the claim of juvenility.
by C.W. 3 during his examination before the learned court. Nowhere it was said by the witness that the entries made in scholar register were manipulated or forged, though he accepted that double entries must not have been made regarding the same student. In my considered opinion the date of birth (05.06.2000) of the child as entered in the first attending school in class first be given preference over the date of birth (15.07.2002) entered subsequently in the further academic record.
Order Date :- 18.7.2023 Suraj Srivastav
Digitally signed by :- SURAJ SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the revisionist was a juvenile at the time of the incident based on the date of birth.
Whether the school register entry from the first admission (05.06.2000) should be preferred over the subsequent entry (15.07.2002).
Whether the medical board opinion is required when both dates of birth indicate an age above 18.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sanjeev Kumar Gupta Vs. State of U.P and othersReferred¶29
Sanjeev Kumar Gupta Vs. State of U.P and others AIR 2019 Supreme Court 4364 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Hon'ble Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.
Suraj Srivastav
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
