In this regard, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in the case of P v. State

1. Heard Sri Manish Tiwary, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Gyan Chandra Yadav, learned counsel for the revisionist; Sri Satendra Bahadur Yati, learned counsel for opposite party no.2; learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record.

2. The instant criminal revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 07.06.2023 passed by Addl. Children's Court/Addl. Special Judge (POCSO), Court No.3, Allahabad, in Criminal Appeal No. 15/2023, arising out of case crime no. 107/2022, under sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 34, 504, 506 of IPC, but charge sheet sub section- 302 and 34 IPC, Police Station- Sarai Inayat, District- Prayagraj.

3. The application was filed by the mother of the revisionist before the Juvenile Justice Board praying for declaring him as juvenile on the date of incident on the basis of High School Certificate. The High School Certificate of the revisionist was got verified from the principal of Ramdei Inter College, Prayagraj. The teacher of the college certified that the name of the revisionist was recorded at serial no. 1793 in scholar register and his date of birth was mentioned as 26.09.2004. He was admitted in his college on the basis of transfer certificate. On the basis of the statement of the principal witness from the Primary School, Palikaranpur, Block Bahadurpur, was summoned. He proved that date of birth of the revisionist was mentioned as 12.02.2004 in the scholar register. He was admitted in the primary school aforesaid on 08.07.2010 in class-2 and in class-3 on 01.07.2011, but because of his continuous absence his name was struck off from roll of the school.

4. During arguments, learned counsel for the revisionist stated that on account of anomaly in the date of birth of revisionist in the educational certificates, ossification test may be directed and the Board refused to order the same keeping in view in section 94 (2) (iii) of the Juvenile Justice Board(Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 and declared his age as 17 years, 6 months and 8 days as per High School Certificate wherein his date of birth was recorded as 26.09.2004.

5. The appellate court has resorted to the same reasoning as of the Juvenile Justice Board, but has further found that the sister of the revisionist was born on 16.07.2004 and, therefore, the revisionist cannot be said to have been born on 12.02.2004. The appellate court found that mere 5 months difference in the date of birth of the revisionist and his sister is not acceptable. The appellate court has disbelieved the age of the revisionist recorded in the High School Certificate and declared him adult.

6. Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the decision of the Children's Court is completely bad in law and is against the settled principles as enunciated in Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. As per Section 94(2)(i), it is the birth certificate from school, ог matriculation or equivalent certificate from the concerned Board which is to be given primacy and it is only in the absence of the same that other documents as stated in Sections 94(2)(ii) and 94(2) (iii) can be relied upon. It is pertinent to note that the scholar register does not finds any mention in the list of admissible documents at all in Section 94. Hence, the Children's Court committed grave error in relying upon the scholar register when the High School Marksheet of the accused was available and especially when the law is very clear that the same should be given primacy.

7. In this regard, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in the case of P. Yuvaprakash v. State 2023 SCC OnLine SC 846 that admission register is not admissible as a proof of age as per Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice Act. The relevant portion of below:- paragraph 19 being quoted "............As held earlier, the documents produced, i.e., a transfer certificate and extracts of the admission register, are not what Section 94(2)(i) mandates; nor are they in accord with Section 94(2)(ii) because DW-1 clearly deposed that there were no records relating to the birth of the victim, M......."

8. Thus, as a natural corollary, the scholar register is also not an admissible document as per the Juvenile Justice Act and hence, the order dated 07.06.2023 passed by the Children's Court deserves to be set aside.

9. Learned AGA and learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 have opposed the submissions advance by learned counsel for revisionist and they have submitted that the Board has wrongly declared the revisionist as juvenile on the basis of his matriculation certificate. The Board wrongly rejected the documents produced from the side of the opposite party no.2 on irrelevant considerations. The revisionist was major at the time of alleged offence and has rightly been held as adult since he has committed heinous offence.

10. After hearing the rival submissions, this Court finds that the appellate court has declared the revisionist as adult by setting aside the order of the Board only on the basis of the birth certificate of his sister and had disbelieved the matriculation certificate of the revisionist which was not supported by any reliable document of school. The Apex Court in the case of of Sanjeev Kumar Gupta Vs. State of U.P. and Another AIR 2019 SC 4364 has held that matriculation certificate without any supporting document cannot be accepted.

11. In case the scholar register of primary school of revisionist is ignored there was no evidence lead by revisionist to support his matriculation certificate. Burden of proving that revisionist was juvenile on the date of incident was on the revisionist, which he failed to discharge.

12. The revision is dismissed.

13. Let the trial court record be sent back to the trial court alongwith copy of this judgment within period of 10 days. Order Date :- 28.7.2025 Abhishek ABHISHEK YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. Heard Sri Manish Tiwary, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Gyan Chandra Yadav, learned counsel for the revisionist; Sri Satendra Bahadur Yati, learned counsel for opposite party no.2; learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record.

2. The instant criminal revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 07.06.2023 passed by Addl. Children's Court/Addl. Special Judge (POCSO), Court No.3, Allahabad, in Criminal Appeal No. 15/2023, arising out of case crime no. 107/2022, under sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 34, 504, 506 of IPC, but charge sheet sub section- 302 and 34 IPC, Police Station- Sarai Inayat, District- Prayagraj.

3. The application was filed by the mother of the revisionist before the Juvenile Justice Board praying for declaring him as juvenile on the date of incident on the basis of High School Certificate. The High School Certificate of the revisionist was got verified from the principal of Ramdei Inter College, Prayagraj. The teacher of the college certified that the name of the revisionist was recorded at serial no. 1793 in scholar register and his date of birth was mentioned as 26.09.2004. He was admitted in his college on the basis of transfer certificate. On the basis of the statement of the principal witness from the Primary School, Palikaranpur, Block Bahadurpur, was summoned. He proved that date of birth of the revisionist was mentioned as 12.02.2004 in the scholar register. He was admitted in the primary school aforesaid on 08.07.2010 in class-2 and in class-3 on 01.07.2011, but because of his continuous absence his name was struck off from roll of the school.

4. During arguments, learned counsel for the revisionist stated that on account of anomaly in the date of birth of revisionist in the educational certificates, ossification test may be directed and the Board refused to order the same keeping in view in section 94 (2) (iii) of the Juvenile Justice Board(Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 and declared his age as 17 years, 6 months and 8 days as per High School Certificate wherein his date of birth was recorded as 26.09.2004.

5. The appellate court has resorted to the same reasoning as of the Juvenile Justice Board, but has further found that the sister of the revisionist was born on 16.07.2004 and, therefore, the revisionist cannot be said to have been born on 12.02.2004. The appellate court found that mere 5 months difference in the date of birth of the revisionist and his sister is not acceptable. The appellate court has disbelieved the age of the revisionist recorded in the High School Certificate and declared him adult.

6. Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the decision of the Children's Court is completely bad in law and is against the settled principles as enunciated in Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. As per Section 94(2)(i), it is the birth certificate from school, ог matriculation or equivalent certificate from the concerned Board which is to be given primacy and it is only in the absence of the same that other documents as stated in Sections 94(2)(ii) and 94(2) (iii) can be relied upon. It is pertinent to note that the scholar register does not finds any mention in the list of admissible documents at all in Section 94. Hence, the Children's Court committed grave error in relying upon the scholar register when the High School Marksheet of the accused was available and especially when the law is very clear that the same should be given primacy.

7. In this regard, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in the case of P. Yuvaprakash v. State 2023 SCC OnLine SC 846 that admission register is not admissible as a proof of age as per Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice Act. The relevant portion of below:- paragraph 19 being quoted "............As held earlier, the documents produced, i.e., a transfer certificate and extracts of the admission register, are not what Section 94(2)(i) mandates; nor are they in accord with Section 94(2)(ii) because DW-1 clearly deposed that there were no records relating to the birth of the victim, M......."

8. Thus, as a natural corollary, the scholar register is also not an admissible document as per the Juvenile Justice Act and hence, the order dated 07.06.2023 passed by the Children's Court deserves to be set aside.

9. Learned AGA and learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 have opposed the submissions advance by learned counsel for revisionist and they have submitted that the Board has wrongly declared the revisionist as juvenile on the basis of his matriculation certificate. The Board wrongly rejected the documents produced from the side of the opposite party no.2 on irrelevant considerations. The revisionist was major at the time of alleged offence and has rightly been held as adult since he has committed heinous offence.

10. After hearing the rival submissions, this Court finds that the appellate court has declared the revisionist as adult by setting aside the order of the Board only on the basis of the birth certificate of his sister and had disbelieved the matriculation certificate of the revisionist which was not supported by any reliable document of school. The Apex Court in the case of of Sanjeev Kumar Gupta Vs. State of U.P. and Another AIR 2019 SC 4364 has held that matriculation certificate without any supporting document cannot be accepted.

11. In case the scholar register of primary school of revisionist is ignored there was no evidence lead by revisionist to support his matriculation certificate. Burden of proving that revisionist was juvenile on the date of incident was on the revisionist, which he failed to discharge.

12. The revision is dismissed.

13. Let the trial court record be sent back to the trial court alongwith copy of this judgment within period of 10 days. Order Date :- 28.7.2025 Abhishek ABHISHEK YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad