X Juvenile vs State of U.P. and Another

Heard Sri Mayank Yadav, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Raghubir Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2, as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the entire material available on record.

¶11

This criminal revision has been filed under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 for setting aside the impugned order dated 15.09.2025 passed by learned Children Court, Baghpat in Criminal Appeal No. 47 of 2025, as well as order dated 13.06.2025 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board in Misc. Application No. 95 of 2024, arising out of Case Crime No. 63 of 2022, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 307 IPC, Police Station Chhaprauli, District Baghpat.

¶12

Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the court concerned while passing the order dated 13.06.2025 has completely failed to appreciate the facts and circumstances of the case, as well as the evidence on record in the form of High School Mark sheet of the revisionist and as per his mark-sheet, date of birth is "27.4.2004" and he is 17 years 10 months and 21 days old at the time of incident. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the

¶13

CRLR No. 6718 of 2025

¶14

2

¶15

revisionist that while passing the order impugned, the court concerned has ignored the provisions of Section 94(2)(iii) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 2015"), because as per the provision, only in the absence of date of birth certificate from the school, or the matriculation or equivalent certificate from the concerned examination board, and in the absence of the birth certificate given by a corporation or a municipal authority or a panchayat, age shall be determination by an ossification test or any other medical age determination test, but in the present case, where the high school certificate of the revisionist is available, there is no need to get conducted an ossification test for the determination of age. It is next submitted that being aggrieved by the order of Juvenile Justice Board dated 13.06.2025, 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 vide order dated 15.09.2025 while affirming the order dated 13.06.2025 passed by Juvenile Justice Board. The orders of the appellate Court as well as Juvenile Justice Board have been challenged on behalf of the revisionist through his natural guardian before this Court.

¶16

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the revisionist that the impugned orders 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 orders are not sustainable in law.

¶17

In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the revisionist has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jarnail Singh vs. State of Haryana reported in 2013 (7) SCC 263 and has referred Para '20', which reads as under :-

¶18

"20. On the issue of determination of age of a minor, one only needs to make a reference to Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as the 2007 Rules). The aforestated 2007 Rules have been framed under Section 68(1) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. Rule 12 referred to hereinabove reads as under :

¶19

CRLR No. 6718 of 2025

¶20

3

¶21

“12. Procedure to be followed in determination of Age.? (1) In every case concerning a

¶22

child or a juvenile in conflict with law, the court or the Board or as the case may be the Committee referred to in rule 19 of these rules shall determine the age of such juvenile or child or a juvenile in conflict with law within a period of thirty days from the date of making of the application for that purpose.

¶23

(2) The court or the Board or as the case may be the Committee shall decide the juvenility or otherwise of the juvenile or the child or as the case may be the juvenile in conflict with law, prima facie on the basis of physical appearance or documents, if available, and send him to the observation home or in jail.

¶24

(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-

¶25

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

¶26

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

¶27

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

¶28

(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.

¶29

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),

¶30

(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."

¶31

CRLR No. 6718 of 2025

¶32

4

¶33

Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 as well as learned A.G.A. have 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.

¶34

Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 further submits that in school leaving certificate/transfer certificate, the date of birth of the juvenile was wrongly corrected as "27.04.2004" in place of "27.4.2002", and on the same basis, the Board as well as appellate court issued direction for ossification test for determination of age of the juvenile.

¶35

In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has placed reliance upon the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Abuzar Hossain @ Gulam Hossain vs. State of West Bengal reported in 2012 (10) SCC 489 [Para '13'] and Parag Bhati (Juvenile) through Legal Guardian-Mother-Rajni Bhati v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another reported in 2016 (12) SCC 744 [Para '5'].

¶36

Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 referred para no. '13' of the case Abuzar Hossain @ Gulam Hossain (supra) , wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:-

¶37

" 13. Before we part with this judgment, we must take notice of a developing situation in recent months in this Court that the contention about age of a convict and claiming the benefit of the relevant provisions of the Act dealing with juvenile delinquents prevalent in various States is raised for the first time in this Court and this Court is required to start the inquiry afresh. Ordinarily this Court would be reluctant to entertain a contention based on factual averments raised for the first time before it. However, the Court is equally reluctant to ignore, overlook or nullify the beneficial provisions of a very socially progressive statute by taking shield behind the technicality of the contention being raised for the first time in this Court. A way has therefore, to be found from this situation not conducive to speedy disposal of cases and yet giving effect to the letter and the spirit of such socially beneficial legislation. We are of the opinion that whenever a case is brought before the Magistrate and the accused appears to be aged 21 years or below, before proceeding with the trial or undertaking an inquiry, an inquiry must be made about the age of the accused on the date of the occurrence. This ought to be more so where special Acts dealing with juvenile delinquent are in force. If necessary, the Magistrate may refer the accused to

¶38

CRLR No. 6718 of 2025

¶39

5

¶40

the Medical Board or the Civil Surgeon, as the case may be, for obtaining creditworthy evidence about age. The Magistrate may as well call upon accused also to lead evidence about his age. Thereafter, the learned Magistrate may proceed in accordance with law. This procedure, if properly followed, would avoid a journey upto the Apex Court and the return journey to the grass-root court. If necessary and found expedient, the High Court may on its administrative side issue necessary instructions to cope with the situation herein indicated."

¶41

Further, he has referred para nos. '5', '26', '27' and '28' of the case Parag Bhati (supra) , wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:-

¶42

" Points for consideration:

¶43

5) The only point for consideration before this Court is whether in the facts and circumstances of the present case when the date of birth mentioned in the matriculation certificate is doubtful, the ossification test can be the last resort to prove the juvenility of the accused?'

¶44

The Hon'ble Supreme Court has further held that:

¶45

" 26) It is no doubt true that if there is a clear and unambiguous case in favour of the juvenile accused that he was a minor below the age of 18 years on the date of the incident and the documentary evidence at least prima facie proves the same, he would be entitled to the special protection under the JJ Act. But when an accused commits a grave and heinous offence and thereafter attempts to take statutory shelter under the guise of being a minor, a casual or cavalier approach while recording as to whether an accused is a juvenile or not cannot be permitted as the courts are enjoined upon to perform their duties with the object of protecting the confidence of common man in the institution entrusted with the administration of justice.

¶46

27) The benefit of the principle of benevolent legislation attached to the JJ Act would thus apply to only such cases wherein the accused is held to be a juvenile on the basis of at least prima facie evidence regarding his minority as the benefit of the possibilities of two views in regard to the age of the alleged accused who is involved in grave and serious offence which he committed and gave effect to it in a wellplanned manner reflecting his maturity of mind rather than innocence indicating that his plea of juvenility is more in the nature of a shield to dodge or dupe the arms of law, cannot be allowed to come to his rescue.

¶47

CRLR No. 6718 of 2025

¶48

6

¶49

28) It is settled position of law that if the matriculation or equivalent certificates are available and there is no other material to prove the correctness, the date of birth mentioned in the matriculation certificate has to be treated as a conclusive proof of the date of birth of the accused. However, if there is any doubt or a contradictory stand is being taken by the accused which raises a doubt on the correctness of the date of birth then as laid down by this Court in Abuzar Hossain (supra), an enquiry for determination of the age of the accused is permissible which has been done in the present case."

¶50

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:-

¶51

"94. Presumption and determination of age.-

¶52

(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.

¶53

(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-

¶54

(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;

¶55

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

¶56

(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:

¶57

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.

¶58

(3) The age recorded by the Committee or the Board to be the age of person

¶59

CRLR No. 6718 of 2025

¶60

7

¶61

so brought before it shall, for the purpose of this Act, be deemed to be the true age of that person."

¶62

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

¶63

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:-

¶64

"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:

¶65

(i) the date of birth certificate from the school or the matriculation or equivalent certificate from the concerned Board, if available;

¶66

(ii) in the absence thereof, the birth certificate given by a corporation or a municipal authority or a panchayat;

¶67

(iii) in the absence of (i) and (ii), the age shall be determined by an ossification test or by any other latest medical age determination test conducted on the orders of the child welfare committee or the JJB."

¶68

As per Section 94 of the Act, 2015, prima facie, for determination of age of a juvenile, the preference shall be given to the date of birth certificate from the school or the matriculation or equivalent certificate from the concerned examination board in accordance with the provisions of Section 94(2)(i) of the Act. The said section provides that, if, the date of birth given in clause (i) is not available, the provision of Section 94(2)(ii) shall be given preference and as per the provisions of Section 94(2)(iii), in absence of above two clauses, 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.

¶69

In the present case, there is high school certificate is available on record and as per high school certificate 2019 issued by the Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U.P., the date of birth of the juvenile

¶70

CRLR No. 6718 of 2025

¶71

8

¶72

is "27.04.2004".

¶73

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 sub-clause (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.

¶74

So in the present case, medical opinion was improperly relied upon despite the existence of valid document, i.e. High School certificate of the year 2019 available on record, in which date of birth of the revisionist is mentioned as "27.04.2004". Correction in S.R. Register has been made on the basis of affidavit dated 26.07.2017 given by the father of the juvenile and the same has been accepted by the C.W.-2 and C.W.-3 namely Sri Dhirendra Kumar and Bablu, teacher of matriculation school. As per records, the corrections made to the date of birth was prior to this case. The said entry is true as per the record of school.

¶75

Accordingly, the revision is allowed.

¶76

The impugned order dated 15.09.2025 passed by learned Children Court, Baghpat in Criminal Appeal No. 47 of 2025, as well as order dated 13.06.2025 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board in Misc. Application No. 95 of 2024, arising out of Case Crime No. 63 of 2022, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 307 IPC, Police Station Chhaprauli, District Baghpat., are hereby set aside and the matter be remanded back to the court concerned to decide the matter afresh, in accordance with law, under the provisions of Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015.

¶77

Office is directed to communicate this order to the concerned court.

¶78

(Jai Prakash Tiwari,J.)

¶79

December 17, 2025/Brijesh

¶80

Digitally signed by :- BRIJESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

X Juvenile v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

X Juvenile v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Juvenile X vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

X Juvenile vs State of U.P. and Another

Narendra @ Bheemsen @ Jogendra vs State of U.P.

Xxx Juvenile vs State of U.P. and Another

X- Juvenile vs State of U.P. and Another

Juvenile X vs State of U.P. and 3 Others