High Court · 2025
Case Details
Acts & Sections
Cited in this judgment
1. Heard Sri Ajay Kumar Mishra, counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A for the State. None has responded on behalf of opposite party no.2 to press this revision.
2. The present criminal revision has been filed assailing the order dated 20.12.2017 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Gautam Budh Nagar in Misc. Case No. 7534 of 2017 (State v. Sonu), under Section 9 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, arising out of Case Crime No. 63 of 2016, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 1208 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act, Police Station Knowledge Park, District Gautam Budh Nagar. By the impugned order, the learned court has allowed the application dated 22.09.2017 and declared opposite party no. 2 to be a juvenile.
3. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that impugned order suffers from manifest illegality and perversity inasmuch as the court, while determining the age of opposite party no. 2, erroneously considered the date of issuance of the medical report (20.05.2017) as the relevant date for age determination, instead of the actual date of medical examination/X-ray which was conducted on 05.12.2016, as is clearly recorded in the medical certificate issued by the Chief Medical Officer, Gautam Budh Nagar (Age Certificate dated 20.05.2017). The said certificate assessed the age of opposite party no. 2 as between 18-22 years. Accordingly, on the date of incident, i.e., 10.02.2016, the accused was clearly above the age of 18 years and thus not entitled to the benefit of juvenility. The conclusion drawn by the court on this basis is thus perverse, erroneous, and contrary to the record and established legal position. The initial application to claim juvenility was filed by the opposite party no.2 on 05.09.2016 and in pursuance thereof his medical examination was conducted on
05.12.2016 but the said application was dismissed as withdrawn vide order 02.06.2017 and again an application under section 9 of the act was filed on 22.09.2017 stating that earlier application was filed under wrong provision of law as such was not pressed even this clarification is not enough to justify the delay in filing the application to claim juvenility. The revisionist specifically raised objections vide application dated 12.12.2017 stating that opposite party no. 2 is not a juvenile, and filed a certified copy of the electoral roll in support thereof, wherein the name of opposite party no. 2 is recorded at Serial No. 495 showing his age as 25 years.
4. However, the court rejected this relevant material merely on the ground that the electoral roll does not mention the year to which it pertains, without any attempt to verify the authenticity or seek clarification. Similarly, the ration card filed by the revisionist was discarded on the ground that it was not legible, and the burden of proof was wrongly shifted upon the revisionist, in derogation of the mandate of Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice Act. No credible documentary evidence whatsoever was filed by opposite party no. 2 in support of his claim of juvenility. Admittedly, he is uneducated and has no school certificate or birth registration document. The sole reliance was placed on a belated medical opinion which itself gave a wide age range (18-22 years). It is settled law that such medical reports are not conclusive and it must be considered only as a last resort in absence of any contradictory evidence. The court, therefore, erred in law in accepting the claim of juvenility in the absence of mandatory documentary proof as required under Section 94(2) of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015.
5. The revisionist has now filed on record a copy of the Voter ID Card issued by the Election Commission of India, indicating the date of birth of opposite party no. 2 as of the year 1992, thereby making him about 24 years of age on the date of the incident. In addition, a copy of the birth certificate dated 19.01.2018 of the son of opposite party no. 2 has also been filed, which records the date of birth of the child as 25.05.2016. Both these documents are public records admissible under Section 74 of the Indian Evidence Act and are sufficient to cast grave doubt on the claim of juvenility. These documents were not earlier available with the revisionist and have now been brought on record to demonstrate that opposite party no. 2 is a married man with a child, which further disproves his alleged minority. Moreover there is no specific denial of the validity or authenticity of both these documents in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the opposite party no.2 before this Hon'ble Court.
6. The court failed to consider these material facts and instead summarily ignored the specific pleadings in this regard. The offence in question occurred in broad daylight on 10.02.2016 at about 9:30 AM. The FIR was lodged promptly wherein opposite party no. 2 was named as an active participant. The accused not only brutally murdered the father of the revisionist but also inflicted grievous injuries upon his brother. The eyewitnesses Daya Ram and Samay Singh, in their statements under Section 161 CrPC, categorically corroborated the involvement of opposite party no. 2. The recovery of the incriminating weapon at the instance of opposite party no. 2 further strengthens the prosecution case. The charge sheet was filed after due investigation against opposite party no. 2 and other accused persons. In such serious and grave offences, a claim of juvenility raised belatedly and without cogent proof ought to have been scrutinized with utmost care and not accepted in a mechanical manner. The court has committed a serious error by mechanically granting the benefit of juvenility to opposite party no. 2 based on an inconclusive medical opinion and by failing to appreciate the gravity of the offence, the nature of evidence, and the surrounding circumstances. The impugned order is thus liable to be set aside.
7. The court also failed to take into account the fact that there was a long-standing land dispute between the accused persons, including opposite party no. 2, and the deceased (father of the revisionist). This enmity formed the clear motive for the pre- planned and targeted assault which resulted in the gruesome murder of the revisionist's father and serious injuries to his brother. This relevant background was part of the prosecution case and is evident from the statements under Section 161 CrPC of the witnesses, yet the court chose to completely ignore this material aspect while mechanically allowing the plea of juvenility. The conduct of opposite party no. 2, as reflected in the investigation and prosecution material, reveals the commission of a heinous and brutal offence, executed in broad daylight with lethal weapons, involving active participation and premeditated design. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pratap Singh v. State of Jharkhand, (2005) 3 SCC 551, has held that while the law does grants protection to juveniles, the benefit should not be extended where the claim is mala fide or raised to defeat the ends of justice especially in cases of grave and heinous offences. The nature and gravity of the offence is a relevant consideration even while evaluating a claim of juvenility. The brutality of the present offence committed in furtherance of a land dispute, with lethal weapons, resulting in one death and multiple grievous injuries is such that the claim of juvenility, even if technically maintainable, should not have been allowed without thorough scrutiny. The protection under the Juvenile Justice Act is not meant to create a shield for accused persons to defeat the course of justice in serious criminal cases. The manner in which the plea of juvenility has been raised at a belated stage, after charge sheet, without cogent proof, and in the face of overwhelming evidence of adulthood including the accused being a registered voter, a married man, and father of a child clearly indicates that the said plea is mala fide, and ought to have been rejected outright. Learned A.G.A. for the State vehemently opposed the present criminal revision and has submitted that order of the court below is justified and may not be interfered by this Court. After hearing the rival submissions, this Court finds that Children's Court has passed the order impugned without properly assessing the age of opposite party no.2. The arguments advanced by counsel for revisionist have force and are unrebutted. The Chief Medical Officer, Gautam Buddh Nagar, submitted ossification test report assessing the age of the opposite party no.2 as between 18-22 years which was vague. The objection raised regarding the age of the opposite party no.2 that it is 25 years, mentioned in the electoral roll, was also not ascertained by the special Court. The impugned order is hereby set aside. The matter is remanded to the special Court for deciding the application of opposite party no.2 filed under Section 9 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 is in accordance with law after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties and accepting fresh evidence from the parties if required, within four weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order. In view of the observations made above, the present criminal revision is allowed. Order Date :-18.07.2025 Abhishek ABHISHEK YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1. Heard Sri Ajay Kumar Mishra, counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A for the State. None has responded on behalf of opposite party no.2 to press this revision.
2. The present criminal revision has been filed assailing the order dated 20.12.2017 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Gautam Budh Nagar in Misc. Case No. 7534 of 2017 (State v. Sonu), under Section 9 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, arising out of Case Crime No. 63 of 2016, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 1208 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act, Police Station Knowledge Park, District Gautam Budh Nagar. By the impugned order, the learned court has allowed the application dated 22.09.2017 and declared opposite party no. 2 to be a juvenile.
3. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that impugned order suffers from manifest illegality and perversity inasmuch as the court, while determining the age of opposite party no. 2, erroneously considered the date of issuance of the medical report (20.05.2017) as the relevant date for age determination, instead of the actual date of medical examination/X-ray which was conducted on 05.12.2016, as is clearly recorded in the medical certificate issued by the Chief Medical Officer, Gautam Budh Nagar (Age Certificate dated 20.05.2017). The said certificate assessed the age of opposite party no. 2 as between 18-22 years. Accordingly, on the date of incident, i.e., 10.02.2016, the accused was clearly above the age of 18 years and thus not entitled to the benefit of juvenility. The conclusion drawn by the court on this basis is thus perverse, erroneous, and contrary to the record and established legal position. The initial application to claim juvenility was filed by the opposite party no.2 on 05.09.2016 and in pursuance thereof his medical examination was conducted on
05.12.2016 but the said application was dismissed as withdrawn vide order 02.06.2017 and again an application under section 9 of the act was filed on 22.09.2017 stating that earlier application was filed under wrong provision of law as such was not pressed even this clarification is not enough to justify the delay in filing the application to claim juvenility. The revisionist specifically raised objections vide application dated 12.12.2017 stating that opposite party no. 2 is not a juvenile, and filed a certified copy of the electoral roll in support thereof, wherein the name of opposite party no. 2 is recorded at Serial No. 495 showing his age as 25 years.
4. However, the court rejected this relevant material merely on the ground that the electoral roll does not mention the year to which it pertains, without any attempt to verify the authenticity or seek clarification. Similarly, the ration card filed by the revisionist was discarded on the ground that it was not legible, and the burden of proof was wrongly shifted upon the revisionist, in derogation of the mandate of Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice Act. No credible documentary evidence whatsoever was filed by opposite party no. 2 in support of his claim of juvenility. Admittedly, he is uneducated and has no school certificate or birth registration document. The sole reliance was placed on a belated medical opinion which itself gave a wide age range (18-22 years). It is settled law that such medical reports are not conclusive and it must be considered only as a last resort in absence of any contradictory evidence. The court, therefore, erred in law in accepting the claim of juvenility in the absence of mandatory documentary proof as required under Section 94(2) of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015.
5. The revisionist has now filed on record a copy of the Voter ID Card issued by the Election Commission of India, indicating the date of birth of opposite party no. 2 as of the year 1992, thereby making him about 24 years of age on the date of the incident. In addition, a copy of the birth certificate dated 19.01.2018 of the son of opposite party no. 2 has also been filed, which records the date of birth of the child as 25.05.2016. Both these documents are public records admissible under Section 74 of the Indian Evidence Act and are sufficient to cast grave doubt on the claim of juvenility. These documents were not earlier available with the revisionist and have now been brought on record to demonstrate that opposite party no. 2 is a married man with a child, which further disproves his alleged minority. Moreover there is no specific denial of the validity or authenticity of both these documents in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the opposite party no.2 before this Hon'ble Court.
6. The court failed to consider these material facts and instead summarily ignored the specific pleadings in this regard. The offence in question occurred in broad daylight on 10.02.2016 at about 9:30 AM. The FIR was lodged promptly wherein opposite party no. 2 was named as an active participant. The accused not only brutally murdered the father of the revisionist but also inflicted grievous injuries upon his brother. The eyewitnesses Daya Ram and Samay Singh, in their statements under Section 161 CrPC, categorically corroborated the involvement of opposite party no. 2. The recovery of the incriminating weapon at the instance of opposite party no. 2 further strengthens the prosecution case. The charge sheet was filed after due investigation against opposite party no. 2 and other accused persons. In such serious and grave offences, a claim of juvenility raised belatedly and without cogent proof ought to have been scrutinized with utmost care and not accepted in a mechanical manner. The court has committed a serious error by mechanically granting the benefit of juvenility to opposite party no. 2 based on an inconclusive medical opinion and by failing to appreciate the gravity of the offence, the nature of evidence, and the surrounding circumstances. The impugned order is thus liable to be set aside.
7. The court also failed to take into account the fact that there was a long-standing land dispute between the accused persons, including opposite party no. 2, and the deceased (father of the revisionist). This enmity formed the clear motive for the pre- planned and targeted assault which resulted in the gruesome murder of the revisionist's father and serious injuries to his brother. This relevant background was part of the prosecution case and is evident from the statements under Section 161 CrPC of the witnesses, yet the court chose to completely ignore this material aspect while mechanically allowing the plea of juvenility. The conduct of opposite party no. 2, as reflected in the investigation and prosecution material, reveals the commission of a heinous and brutal offence, executed in broad daylight with lethal weapons, involving active participation and premeditated design. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pratap Singh v. State of Jharkhand, (2005) 3 SCC 551, has held that while the law does grants protection to juveniles, the benefit should not be extended where the claim is mala fide or raised to defeat the ends of justice especially in cases of grave and heinous offences. The nature and gravity of the offence is a relevant consideration even while evaluating a claim of juvenility. The brutality of the present offence committed in furtherance of a land dispute, with lethal weapons, resulting in one death and multiple grievous injuries is such that the claim of juvenility, even if technically maintainable, should not have been allowed without thorough scrutiny. The protection under the Juvenile Justice Act is not meant to create a shield for accused persons to defeat the course of justice in serious criminal cases. The manner in which the plea of juvenility has been raised at a belated stage, after charge sheet, without cogent proof, and in the face of overwhelming evidence of adulthood including the accused being a registered voter, a married man, and father of a child clearly indicates that the said plea is mala fide, and ought to have been rejected outright. Learned A.G.A. for the State vehemently opposed the present criminal revision and has submitted that order of the court below is justified and may not be interfered by this Court. After hearing the rival submissions, this Court finds that Children's Court has passed the order impugned without properly assessing the age of opposite party no.2. The arguments advanced by counsel for revisionist have force and are unrebutted. The Chief Medical Officer, Gautam Buddh Nagar, submitted ossification test report assessing the age of the opposite party no.2 as between 18-22 years which was vague. The objection raised regarding the age of the opposite party no.2 that it is 25 years, mentioned in the electoral roll, was also not ascertained by the special Court. The impugned order is hereby set aside. The matter is remanded to the special Court for deciding the application of opposite party no.2 filed under Section 9 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 is in accordance with law after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties and accepting fresh evidence from the parties if required, within four weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order. In view of the observations made above, the present criminal revision is allowed. Order Date :-18.07.2025 Abhishek ABHISHEK YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad