Dismissed

Revisionist Is Minor 'R' v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC19 Jan 2024CRLR/31/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision, the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) examined allegations that a revisionist was a juvenile. The court upheld the trial court's reliance on high school admit card and mark sheet to fix the date of birth under Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice Act. It rejected the revisionist's plea to summon a new witness as barred by finality of the previous order.

What did the court decide?

The revision was rejected, upholding the lower court's finding that the revisionist was a major aged over 18 years.

Revisionist Is Minor 'R' vs State of U.P. Thru… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:5845

¶2

Court No. - 27

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 31 of 2024 Revisionist :- Revisionist Is Minor 'R' Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 3 Others

¶4

Counsel for Revisionist :- Niranjan Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶6

1.Case called out in the revised list.

¶7

Nobody is present to press this revision. Sri Anurag Verma, learned A.G.A-I appearing on behalf of the State is present.

¶8

The present revision was filed on 10.01.2024 and it was passed over on 12.01.2024 and 17.01.2024 also due to nonavailability of the learned counsel for the revisionist.

¶9

Accordingly, I proceed to decide the revision on its merits after hearing submissions of the learned A.G.A-I.

¶10

The revisionist has challenged the validity of an order dated 22.11.2021 passed by the Special Judge (POCSO Act), Pratapgarh, rejecting in Criminal Misc. Case No. 447 of 2021 in Session Trial No. 591 of 2021 arising out of Case Crime No. 83 of 2021 under section 376 I.P.C and Section 5M/6 POCSO Act, Police Station Aaspur Deosara, District Pratapgarh whereby the plea of the revisionist that he was juvenile on the date of the incident i.e on 11.04.2021 was rejected.

¶11

Subsequently, the revisionist has filed an application for summoning Principal of a Primary School to prove his date of birth which has been rejected by means of an order dated 10.10.2023 and the revisionist has challenged the validity of that order also.

¶12

Briefly stated, facts of the case are that an F.I.R was lodged on 21.04.2021 alleging that the revisionist aged 18 years had raped the informant, who was aged 17 years.

¶13

Father and natural guardian of the revisionist had filed an application before the trial court stating that the revisionist's date of birth is 16.12.2005 and on the date of the incident i.e on 11.04.2021, the revisionist was aged 15 years 3 months and 26 days and he should be declared a juvenile. The informant filed objections against the aforesaid claim of the revisionist and she filed high school admit card, high school mark sheet, Aadhaar card and relevant extract of Parivaar register of the revisionist, wherein the date of birth of the revisionist is recorded as 01.01.2002 and, therefore, on the date of the incident, he was aged 19 years 3 months and 10 days.

¶14

The Principal of Junior High School, Dhanepur, Asspur Deosara, District Pratapgarh had appeared before the trial court in response to a summon issued by the trial court and he had produced the scholar register, as per which the date of birth of the revisionist is 16.12.2005. In his oral evidence, the revisionist's father has stated that he got married in 1999. The revisionist is his eldest son, who was born on 16.12.2005 and he has four children.

¶15

The special public prosecutor had placed reliance on the high school admit card and high school mark sheet and extract of Parivaar register, in all of which the date of the birth of the revisionist was mentioned as 01.01.2002 and as per with the revisionist was major on the date of the incident.

¶16

After taking into consideration all the relevant materials is either parties, the trial court came to a conclusion that the date of birth of the revisionist is 01.01.2002 and on the date of the

¶17

incident i.e on 11.04.20201, he was a major.

¶18

While deciding the application filed by the revisionist, for summoning the Principal of Junior High School, Dhanipur, Aaspur Deosara, District Pratapgarh, the trial court held that this issue has already been decided by means of an order dated 22.11.2021, and, therefore, it would not be proper to summon the witness for proving the date of birth of the revisionist. It has also been observed in the order dated 10.10.2023, that the order dated 22.11.2021 was not challenged by the revisionist and the revisionist allowed the order to attain finality. Therefore, the subsequent application for summoning a witness for proving the date of birth of the revision, is barred by the principle of Stockholm.

¶19

I have gone through the impugned orders dated 22.11.2021 and 10.10.2023, passed by the the trial court. In both the orders, it is recorded that as per the high school admit card and the mark sheet of the revisionist, his date of birth is 01.01.2002. Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice Act provides that age of the person shall be determined by obtaining his date of birth certificate from the school, or the matriculation or equivalent certificate from the concerned examination Board and any other documents will be seen only if the aforesaid documents are not available. Therefore, the date of birth mentioned in the high school admit card/ mark sheet will have precedence over any other documents.

¶20

In view of the forgoing discussions, there appears to be no error or illegality in the in orders dated 22.11.2021 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board rejecting the bail application of the applicant and the judgment and order dated 10.10.2023 passed by the Additional District Judge/ Special Judge (POCSO Act), Pratapgarh.

¶21

The application lacks merits and the same is accordingly rejected.

¶22

The registry of this court is directed to communicate this order to the trial court concerned.

¶23

(Subhash Vidyarthi,J.)

¶24

Order Date :- 19.1.2024 Preeti.

¶25

Digitally signed by :- PREETI GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Revisionist Is Minor 'R' v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Revisionist Is Minor 'R' v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Lalta Prasad Dwivedi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lucknow and Another

Dasarath and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Diwakar Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko. and Another

Veer Prakash Vs Smt. Shilpi Verma

Revisionist Is Minor 'R' Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Ram Adhar and Othhers Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Another