Rahul v. Counsel for Revisionist(s)

1. Heard Sri Shikhar Awasthi, learned counsel for the revisionist; Sri Pradeep Yadav, learned counsel for respondent no.4; Learned AGA for State and perused the trial court record.

2. This criminal revision has been filed to set aside the impugned order dated

26.07.2021 passed by Juvenile Justice Board in age determination Application No. 08 of 2020 and order dated 11.11.2021 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act), Court No. 3, District- Amroha in Criminal Appeal No. 19 OF 2021, arising out of Case Crime No. 401 OF 2017 U/S 376, 506 IPC, Section 3/4 POCSO Act, 2012, Police Station Mandi Dhanura, District- Amroha,

3. An application was made on 14.02.2021 by father of the revisionist before the Juvenile Justice Board, Amroha, claiming that the date of birth of the revisionist is

13.02.2021 and therefore on the date of incident dated.22.08.2017 he was aged about 16 years only. He studied from Class-3 to Class-5th in Saini Smarak Shikshan Sansthan Junior High School Patthar Kuti, Tehsil Dhanaura, District Amroha. His son is mentally ill and is under treatment in private and government hospitals for long time. Hence he may be declared juvenile on the day of incident.

4. Before the Board, the Head Master of the Saini Smarak Shikshan Sansthan Junior High School was examined as C.W.-2 to prove the S.R. Register, Attendance Register, Fees Register, Admission Form, Student Register and Transfer Certificate.

5. The Chief Medical Officer was examined as C.W.-3 who proved that the age of the revisionist at the time of his Ossification Test was 25 years (as on 23.02.2021).

6. The Board found that C.W.-2 did not produced the original documents required by the Board and only produced the photocopies of the same. The revisionist side did not proved where the revisionist studied in Class-1 and Class-2. The Board found that 2 CRLR No. 4235 of 2025 there is no reliable evidence brought on record to prove that the date of birth of the revisionist is 13.02.2021.

7. Further on the basis of the report of the Chief Medical Officer dated 23.02.2021, on the date of incident dated 22.08.2017, his age was found to be 21 years, 5 months and 29 days. Even after reducing his age by 6 months, his age was found to be above 21 years. Hence the Board turned down the claim of revisionist by its order dated

26.07.2021.

8. The Children's Court has upheld the order dated 26.07.2021 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board and hence this revision has been preferred before this Court.

9. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the Original Transfer Certificate was part of the Police Case Diary along with S.R. Register. The Pariwar Register was not considered by both the Courts. The Medical Report regarding mental illness of revisionist was also not considered. The photocopies of the documents produced before the Board were duly proved.

10. The counsel for the opposite party no.2 and leaned A.G.A. appearing for opposite party no.1 have opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant.

11. This court after hearing the rival submissions and material on record finds that there is no evidence on record to prove where the revisionist studied before admission in Sainik Smarak School aforesaid in Class-3. The finding recorded by the Juvenile Justice Board in this regard has not been controverted by the counsel for the revisionist. The Apex Court in the case of Suresh vs. State of U.P. and Anr, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 761 has held that the date of birth recorded solely on the oral representation of the father of the accused, without any supporting documents is unreliable. The revisionist failed to prove by any reliable evidence that the date of birth recorded in Class-3 was based on any documentary evidence. Regarding the argument of learned counsel for revisionist of not considering the Family Register, this court finds that it was not brought on record by the revisionist as clear from the List of Documents filed in evidence before the Trial Court being Paper No.19-B on record of the trial court. The learned counsel for the revisionist has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Manoj @ Monu @ Vishal Chaudhary Vs. State of Haryana and Another, 2022 Live Law (SC) 170 and has submitted that the extract of Pariwar Register was required to be considered by the Board since it was a relevant document but in the absence of such document on record, the argument has no relevance. C.W.-2 stated before the Board that the date of birth of the revisionist is mentioned in the Transfer Certificate on the basis of oral information given by the father of the revisionist. Since the documents as per Section-94 (2)(i) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 were available, the Ossification Test of accused was not required to be conducted as per Sub Clause –(iii) of the Section aforesaid.

12. Regarding the argument of the learned counsel for the revisionist regarding non 3 CRLR No. 4235 of 2025 consideration of the medical documents regarding mental illness of the revisionist and no preliminary assessment of the revisionist as per Section-15 of the Act, this court finds from the record of trial court that the trial of the revisionist has already been concluded by the trial court and he has been convicted an sentenced by the judgment and order dated 09.08.2021. This revision has been preferred before this Court with delay of 1109 days, but in the larger interest of justice the delay was condoned and the revision is being decided on merits by this Court.

13. In view of above consideration, this court does not finds any ground to interfere with the findings recorded by the courts in their judgments and orders under challenge.

14. The revision fails and is accordingly dismissed.

15. Let the Trial Court record be returned along with a copy of this judgment within a period of 10 days. October 27, 2025 Abhishek (Siddharth,J.)

1. Heard Sri Shikhar Awasthi, learned counsel for the revisionist; Sri Pradeep Yadav, learned counsel for respondent no.4; Learned AGA for State and perused the trial court record.

2. This criminal revision has been filed to set aside the impugned order dated

26.07.2021 passed by Juvenile Justice Board in age determination Application No. 08 of 2020 and order dated 11.11.2021 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act), Court No. 3, District- Amroha in Criminal Appeal No. 19 OF 2021, arising out of Case Crime No. 401 OF 2017 U/S 376, 506 IPC, Section 3/4 POCSO Act, 2012, Police Station Mandi Dhanura, District- Amroha,

3. An application was made on 14.02.2021 by father of the revisionist before the Juvenile Justice Board, Amroha, claiming that the date of birth of the revisionist is

13.02.2021 and therefore on the date of incident dated.22.08.2017 he was aged about 16 years only. He studied from Class-3 to Class-5th in Saini Smarak Shikshan Sansthan Junior High School Patthar Kuti, Tehsil Dhanaura, District Amroha. His son is mentally ill and is under treatment in private and government hospitals for long time. Hence he may be declared juvenile on the day of incident.

4. Before the Board, the Head Master of the Saini Smarak Shikshan Sansthan Junior High School was examined as C.W.-2 to prove the S.R. Register, Attendance Register, Fees Register, Admission Form, Student Register and Transfer Certificate.

5. The Chief Medical Officer was examined as C.W.-3 who proved that the age of the revisionist at the time of his Ossification Test was 25 years (as on 23.02.2021).

6. The Board found that C.W.-2 did not produced the original documents required by the Board and only produced the photocopies of the same. The revisionist side did not proved where the revisionist studied in Class-1 and Class-2. The Board found that 2 CRLR No. 4235 of 2025 there is no reliable evidence brought on record to prove that the date of birth of the revisionist is 13.02.2021.

7. Further on the basis of the report of the Chief Medical Officer dated 23.02.2021, on the date of incident dated 22.08.2017, his age was found to be 21 years, 5 months and 29 days. Even after reducing his age by 6 months, his age was found to be above 21 years. Hence the Board turned down the claim of revisionist by its order dated

26.07.2021.

8. The Children's Court has upheld the order dated 26.07.2021 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board and hence this revision has been preferred before this Court.

9. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the Original Transfer Certificate was part of the Police Case Diary along with S.R. Register. The Pariwar Register was not considered by both the Courts. The Medical Report regarding mental illness of revisionist was also not considered. The photocopies of the documents produced before the Board were duly proved.

10. The counsel for the opposite party no.2 and leaned A.G.A. appearing for opposite party no.1 have opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant.

11. This court after hearing the rival submissions and material on record finds that there is no evidence on record to prove where the revisionist studied before admission in Sainik Smarak School aforesaid in Class-3. The finding recorded by the Juvenile Justice Board in this regard has not been controverted by the counsel for the revisionist. The Apex Court in the case of Suresh vs. State of U.P. and Anr, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 761 has held that the date of birth recorded solely on the oral representation of the father of the accused, without any supporting documents is unreliable. The revisionist failed to prove by any reliable evidence that the date of birth recorded in Class-3 was based on any documentary evidence. Regarding the argument of learned counsel for revisionist of not considering the Family Register, this court finds that it was not brought on record by the revisionist as clear from the List of Documents filed in evidence before the Trial Court being Paper No.19-B on record of the trial court. The learned counsel for the revisionist has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Manoj @ Monu @ Vishal Chaudhary Vs. State of Haryana and Another, 2022 Live Law (SC) 170 and has submitted that the extract of Pariwar Register was required to be considered by the Board since it was a relevant document but in the absence of such document on record, the argument has no relevance. C.W.-2 stated before the Board that the date of birth of the revisionist is mentioned in the Transfer Certificate on the basis of oral information given by the father of the revisionist. Since the documents as per Section-94 (2)(i) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 were available, the Ossification Test of accused was not required to be conducted as per Sub Clause –(iii) of the Section aforesaid.

12. Regarding the argument of the learned counsel for the revisionist regarding non 3 CRLR No. 4235 of 2025 consideration of the medical documents regarding mental illness of the revisionist and no preliminary assessment of the revisionist as per Section-15 of the Act, this court finds from the record of trial court that the trial of the revisionist has already been concluded by the trial court and he has been convicted an sentenced by the judgment and order dated 09.08.2021. This revision has been preferred before this Court with delay of 1109 days, but in the larger interest of justice the delay was condoned and the revision is being decided on merits by this Court.

13. In view of above consideration, this court does not finds any ground to interfere with the findings recorded by the courts in their judgments and orders under challenge.

14. The revision fails and is accordingly dismissed.

15. Let the Trial Court record be returned along with a copy of this judgment within a period of 10 days. October 27, 2025 Abhishek (Siddharth,J.)