Juvenile X State of U.P. and Another v. Revisionist(s) .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Revisionist(s) Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Sushil Kumar Dwivedi

Heard Sri Sushil Kumar Dwivedi, learned counsel for the revisionist; Mohd. Samiuzzaman Khan, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 and learned A.G.A for the State and perused the material on record.

2. The present criminal revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 10.01.2025 passed by Juvenile Court / Additional Session Judge / Special Judge (POCSO Act), Fatehpur in Criminal Appeal No. 47 of 2022, (Juvenile "X" S/o Narendra Singh Yadav through his natural Guardian / Natural brother, Ravendra Singh S/o Narendra Singh Yadav vs. State of U.P.) in Case Crime No. 66 of 2016, under Sections- 302/34, 342, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(2)(V) of SC/ST (P.A) Act, P.S.- Hathgaon, District- Fatehpur as well as order dated 30.08.2016 passed by Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Fatehpur in Case Crime No. 66 of 2016, under Sections- 342, 302, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Hathgaon, District- Fatehpur whereby Juvenile Court / Additional Session Judge / Special Judge (POCSO Act), Fatehpur rejected the criminal appeal no. 47 of 2022 and approved the order dated 30.08.2016 passed by Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Fatehpur.

3. Before the Juvenile Justice Board, Fatehpur an application was made on behalf of the revisionist claiming that there is no educational 2 CRLR No. 3685 of 2025 documents available and therefore his ossification test may be directed to be conducted by medical board. Accordingly, the revisionist was referred by Juvenile Justice Board and the medical board submitted its report dated 25.07.2016 wherefrom his age was found to be about 19 years. The board found that on the date of incident dated 01.04.2016, the revisionist was aged above 18 years of age and was declared as such by the order dated 30.08.2016 passed by Juvenile Justice Board.

4. An appeal was preferred by the revisionist before the Children's Court against the order dated 30.08.2016 of the Juvenile Justice Board wherein it was claimed that as per high school examination certificate of the juvenile, his date of birth was 15.04.2001 and on the date of incident dated 01.04.2016 he was aged about 14 years, 11 months and 16 days.

5. In support of the claim, it was pleaded that the revisionist could not appear in high school examination of 2016 from Chaudhary Raghunath Inter College, Hathgaon, Fatehpur, but he appeared in the high school examination in the year 2018 with Roll No. 4046929 and had passed class-9th examination in the year 2014-2015. His date of birth mentioned in the school record was 15.04.2001. The Juvenile Justice Board instead of relying upon the educational certificate illegally directed his ossification test and relying upon the same declared the revisionist aged above 18 years.

6. Against the order dated 30.08.2016 of the board, the revisionist preferred a revision before the High Court and then approached the Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court directed him by the order dated 28.03.2022 to file appeal against the order of Juvenile Justice Board dated 30.08.2016. Accordingly, the Appeal No. 47 of 2022 was filed along with the delay condonation application. The Children's Court examined the lecturer of physics employed in Rajkiya Inter College, Fatehpur. He proved that the revisionist appeared in high school examination in 2018 as private examinee while being incarcerated in District Jail, Fatehpur but he failed in the aforesaid examination. During the examination, the aforesaid witness failed to reply to the query whether the revisionist passed class-8th examination with the permission of Jail Authorities where he was incarcerated.

7. P.W.-2, Principal of Chaudhary Raghunath Sahai Inter College, Fatehpur, proved that the date of birth of revisionist recorded in his 3 CRLR No. 3685 of 2025 school record is 15.04.2001. He took admission in class-9th on 11.07.2014 and passed the same on 20.03.2015. He admitted that the transfer certificate of class-8th of the revisionist is on record wherein his date of birth is mentioned as 15.04.2001. He proved the same from the register brought before the court. In cross-examination, P.W.-2, stated that he is working on the post of Principal since 27.12.2022. He also admitted that there is cutting in the SR register in date of birth of revisionist. The date of birth of 30.06.2014 was cut and changed to 15.04.2001. In words it is clearly mentioned as 30th June, 2014 in red pen which has been cut and below it date of birth has been mentioned as 15th April, 2001 in blue ink which can be due to clerical mistake. He admitted that the revisionist was admitted in class-9th in his school and date of his admission is mentioned 26.07.2013 but no other particulars are mentioned on the page of admission register nor anyone has signed the same.

8. The Appellate Court found that before the Juvenile Justice Board, the revisionist took the stand that he has no educational document and therefore his ossification test should be directed to be conducted but before the Appellate court, he claimed that he has documents of his studies in Chaudhary Raghunath Sahai, Inter College, Hathgaon, Fatehpur, which was a contradictory stand.

9. The Appellate Court, relying upon the judgment of Parag Bhati v. State of U.P., (2016) 12 SCC 744, held that the revisionist had committed a heinous offence of murder and, therefore, could not claim the benefit of being a juvenile. It was noticed that the revisionist had approached the Juvenile Justice Board by making a false averment that he possessed no educational documents, whereas he subsequently produced such documents before the Children's Court, which were not found to be reliable. Consequently, the Children's Court affirmed the order of the Juvenile Justice Board and dismissed the appeal preferred by the revisionist by order dated 10.01.2025

10. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, this Court does not find any ground to interfere with the orders passed by the courts below. It is evident that the revisionist had made contradictory claims before the Juvenile Justice Board and the Children's Court. The Children's Court has duly considered the entire facts and circumstances, including the conduct of the revisionist in misleading the Court by setting up different cases before different forums. Accordingly, the orders passed 4 CRLR No. 3685 of 2025 by the courts below call for no interference.

11. The revision lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. September 16, 2025 Rohit (Siddharth,J.) ROHIT DAS High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Heard Sri Sushil Kumar Dwivedi, learned counsel for the revisionist; Mohd. Samiuzzaman Khan, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 and learned A.G.A for the State and perused the material on record.

2. The present criminal revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 10.01.2025 passed by Juvenile Court / Additional Session Judge / Special Judge (POCSO Act), Fatehpur in Criminal Appeal No. 47 of 2022, (Juvenile "X" S/o Narendra Singh Yadav through his natural Guardian / Natural brother, Ravendra Singh S/o Narendra Singh Yadav vs. State of U.P.) in Case Crime No. 66 of 2016, under Sections- 302/34, 342, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(2)(V) of SC/ST (P.A) Act, P.S.- Hathgaon, District- Fatehpur as well as order dated 30.08.2016 passed by Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Fatehpur in Case Crime No. 66 of 2016, under Sections- 342, 302, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Hathgaon, District- Fatehpur whereby Juvenile Court / Additional Session Judge / Special Judge (POCSO Act), Fatehpur rejected the criminal appeal no. 47 of 2022 and approved the order dated 30.08.2016 passed by Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Fatehpur.

3. Before the Juvenile Justice Board, Fatehpur an application was made on behalf of the revisionist claiming that there is no educational 2 CRLR No. 3685 of 2025 documents available and therefore his ossification test may be directed to be conducted by medical board. Accordingly, the revisionist was referred by Juvenile Justice Board and the medical board submitted its report dated 25.07.2016 wherefrom his age was found to be about 19 years. The board found that on the date of incident dated 01.04.2016, the revisionist was aged above 18 years of age and was declared as such by the order dated 30.08.2016 passed by Juvenile Justice Board.

4. An appeal was preferred by the revisionist before the Children's Court against the order dated 30.08.2016 of the Juvenile Justice Board wherein it was claimed that as per high school examination certificate of the juvenile, his date of birth was 15.04.2001 and on the date of incident dated 01.04.2016 he was aged about 14 years, 11 months and 16 days.

5. In support of the claim, it was pleaded that the revisionist could not appear in high school examination of 2016 from Chaudhary Raghunath Inter College, Hathgaon, Fatehpur, but he appeared in the high school examination in the year 2018 with Roll No. 4046929 and had passed class-9th examination in the year 2014-2015. His date of birth mentioned in the school record was 15.04.2001. The Juvenile Justice Board instead of relying upon the educational certificate illegally directed his ossification test and relying upon the same declared the revisionist aged above 18 years.

6. Against the order dated 30.08.2016 of the board, the revisionist preferred a revision before the High Court and then approached the Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court directed him by the order dated 28.03.2022 to file appeal against the order of Juvenile Justice Board dated 30.08.2016. Accordingly, the Appeal No. 47 of 2022 was filed along with the delay condonation application. The Children's Court examined the lecturer of physics employed in Rajkiya Inter College, Fatehpur. He proved that the revisionist appeared in high school examination in 2018 as private examinee while being incarcerated in District Jail, Fatehpur but he failed in the aforesaid examination. During the examination, the aforesaid witness failed to reply to the query whether the revisionist passed class-8th examination with the permission of Jail Authorities where he was incarcerated.

7. P.W.-2, Principal of Chaudhary Raghunath Sahai Inter College, Fatehpur, proved that the date of birth of revisionist recorded in his 3 CRLR No. 3685 of 2025 school record is 15.04.2001. He took admission in class-9th on 11.07.2014 and passed the same on 20.03.2015. He admitted that the transfer certificate of class-8th of the revisionist is on record wherein his date of birth is mentioned as 15.04.2001. He proved the same from the register brought before the court. In cross-examination, P.W.-2, stated that he is working on the post of Principal since 27.12.2022. He also admitted that there is cutting in the SR register in date of birth of revisionist. The date of birth of 30.06.2014 was cut and changed to 15.04.2001. In words it is clearly mentioned as 30th June, 2014 in red pen which has been cut and below it date of birth has been mentioned as 15th April, 2001 in blue ink which can be due to clerical mistake. He admitted that the revisionist was admitted in class-9th in his school and date of his admission is mentioned 26.07.2013 but no other particulars are mentioned on the page of admission register nor anyone has signed the same.

8. The Appellate Court found that before the Juvenile Justice Board, the revisionist took the stand that he has no educational document and therefore his ossification test should be directed to be conducted but before the Appellate court, he claimed that he has documents of his studies in Chaudhary Raghunath Sahai, Inter College, Hathgaon, Fatehpur, which was a contradictory stand.

9. The Appellate Court, relying upon the judgment of Parag Bhati v. State of U.P., (2016) 12 SCC 744, held that the revisionist had committed a heinous offence of murder and, therefore, could not claim the benefit of being a juvenile. It was noticed that the revisionist had approached the Juvenile Justice Board by making a false averment that he possessed no educational documents, whereas he subsequently produced such documents before the Children's Court, which were not found to be reliable. Consequently, the Children's Court affirmed the order of the Juvenile Justice Board and dismissed the appeal preferred by the revisionist by order dated 10.01.2025

10. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, this Court does not find any ground to interfere with the orders passed by the courts below. It is evident that the revisionist had made contradictory claims before the Juvenile Justice Board and the Children's Court. The Children's Court has duly considered the entire facts and circumstances, including the conduct of the revisionist in misleading the Court by setting up different cases before different forums. Accordingly, the orders passed 4 CRLR No. 3685 of 2025 by the courts below call for no interference.

11. The revision lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. September 16, 2025 Rohit (Siddharth,J.) ROHIT DAS High Court of Judicature at Allahabad