Ram Pravesh Yadav v. State of U.P and Another) arising out of Misc. Case No
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:116516 Reserved On:- 03.07.2025 Delivered On:- 17.07.2025 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2222 of 2020 Revisionist :- Bhola @ Sandeep Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Surendra Mohan Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Siddharth, J. 1.
Legal Reasoning
Heard Surendra Mohan Mishra, learned counsel for the revisionist; learned A.G.A for the State and perused the material on record. 2. The present criminal revision is being preferred by the revisionist against the order dated 21.07.2020 passed by Additional District and Session Judge (POCSO Act), Room No. 03, Deoria in Criminal Appeal No. 11 of 2020 (Ram Pravesh Yadav vs. State of U.P and Another) arising out of Misc. Case No. 4 of 2019 (State vs. Bhola @ Sandeep), Case Crime No. 42 of 2018, under Sections- 302, 323, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station- Ekauna, District- Deoria pending before the Juvenile Justice Board, Deoria. 3. The mother of alleged Child in Conflict with Law (C.I.C.L) made an application before the Juvenile Justice Board, Deoria praying that in the charge sheet submitted by the local police, age of alleged C.I.C.L has wrongly been mentioned as 19 years when his date of birth is 02.02.2003 and on the date of incident dated 18.07.2018 he was less than 18 years of age, therefore, he may be declared juvenile. 4. In support of her application she filed an affidavit stating that his son has passed class-VIII examination from Kisan Laghu Inter College, Deoria. The Juvenile Justice Board summoned the principal of the aforesaid college with the record, who appeared before the board and denied that the alleged C.I.C.L never studied in his college and the transfer certificate filed before the court was never issued by his college . 5. Thereafter, mother of alleged C.I.C.L filed another application stating that the date of birth of her son is 02.02.2003 as per family register and aadhar card. 6. Gram Vikas Adhikari appeared before the board and informed that earlier the date of birth of the son of the revisionist was recorded as 05.01.1999 but after amendment it has been recorded as 02.02.2003. The application for correction in the date of birth of the alleged C.I.C.L was made on 04.08.2018 on the basis of entry in aadhar card. 7. The board found that the amendment in the date of birth of the alleged C.I.C.L was made on the basis of the application dated 04.08.2018 made by the mother of C.I.C.L which was after the lodging of the F.I.R dated 18.07.2018, therefore the board doubted the entry in the family register produced by the Gram Vikas Adhikari. 8. Thereafter the board called for ossification test report from the Chief Medical Officer wherein it was found that the age of the son of the informant at the time of incident dated 18.07.2018 was about 15 years and hence the Board declared the son of the revisionist as child in conflict with law (C.I.C.L). 9. The revisionist preferred Criminal Appeal No. 11 of 2020 before the Special Court against the order dated 29.01.2020 passed by the board and the same has been set aside by the Special Court and hence this revision. 10. The Special Court has found that after the educational documents and family register were disbelieved by the board there was no occasion for the Board to get the Ossification Test Report of alleged C.I.C.L as per Section- 94(2) of the Juvenile Justice (Care And Protection of Children) Act, 2015. The Appellate Court has found that the documents as per Section-94(2) (i) 2 and Sub Clause (ii) were produced before the Board and were not found to be reliable, therefore, there was no occasion for the board to resort to ossification test provided under Sub Clause (iii) of the section aforesaid and set aside the order of board on this account. 11. The counsel for the revisionist submits that the order of the board was in accordance with law and ought not to have been interfered by the Special Court. 12. Learned A.G.A has opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the revisionist and has submitted that the judgement of the Appellate Court is in accordance with law. 13. For deciding the present controversy a perusal of Section 94 (2) of the Act is required to be made which is as follows: “Section 94. Presumption and 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 3 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.” 14. A bare perusal of the aforesaid Section shows that only after the documents provided under Sub Clause(i) and 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) and (ii) were produced before the Board but were not found to be reliable. As per aforesaid sub clauses only in the absence of the documents mentioned sub- clause (i)(ii) resort to ossification test should be made. In the present case, the board 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 but were found to be suspicious. Therefore, the order of the board has rightly been set aside by the Appellate Court. There is no infirmity in the order of the Appellate Court. 15. The revision has no merit and is accordingly, dismissed. Order Date :- 17.07.2025 Rohit Digitally signed by :- ROHIT DAS High Court of Judicature at Allahabad 4