HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 6207 of 2024 Court No. - 47 HON'BLE SIDDHARTH, J. Heard Sri Mohd. Shoeb Khan, learned counsel for the revisionist; Ms. Ankita Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 and learned A.G.A for the State. The Juvenile Justice Board, Kushinagar at Padrauna, by order dated 16.07.2024, declared the revisionist to be a juvenile, aged about 16 years, 7 months and 24 days. The Board, on the basis of the evidence produced before it, recorded a finding that the mother of the revisionist had filed the educational certificates pertaining to Class-I to Class-V of Janta Prathmik Vidyalaya, wherein the date of birth of the revisionist is recorded as 01.01.2008. Consequently, as on the date of the incident i.e. 25.08.2024, the revisionist was found to be aged about 16 years, 7 months and 24 days. In order to prove the said educational records, the Head Master of the concerned institution was examined before the Board. The Appellate Court, while allowing the appeal preferred by the informant, recorded a finding that there were cuttings in the S.R. Register in the column relating to the date of birth of the revisionist. It was further held that the certificate produced by the revisionist had been issued by an unaided private school and, therefore, could not be treated as reliable. The Appellate Court accordingly directed that an ossification test of the revisionist be conducted, since the educational documents relied upon were not trustworthy. Consequently, the order dated 16.07.2024 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Kushinagar at Padrauna, was set aside. Learned counsel for the informant as well as the learned A.G.A. have Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Mohd. Shoeb Khan Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Ankita Pandey, G.A. S Juvenile .....Revisionist(s) State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Opposite Party(s) vehemently opposed the submissions advanced on behalf of the revisionist. They have contended that the evidence adduced before the Juvenile Justice Board on behalf of the revisionist was not reliable and that the Board had wrongly declared him to be a juvenile. Counsel for the informant has submitted that on the school leaving certificate, it is clear that the revisionist was admitted in the school on 08.07.2013 and left the school on 31.07.2017. Therefore, in four years he cannot pass class-1st to class-5th. She has further pointed out that in the date of birth of revisionist mentioned in words, there is cutting. This Court has perused the school leaving certificate of the revisionist, brought on record as Annexure-2 to the revision. A perusal of the said document shows that the date of passing of the Class-V examination is recorded as 31.03.2018. The date 31.03.2017, relied upon by the learned counsel for the informant, is in fact the date of the last admission of the revisionist in the school. Accordingly, the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the informant in this regard is factually incorrect. In so far as the second submission relating to the cutting in the entry of the date of birth of the revisionist is concerned, the same requires consideration. This Court finds that the date of birth of the revisionist is correctly recorded in numbers as 01.01.2008, the same is mentioned in words in brackets as well. It is noticed that there is some cutting in the portion where the age of the revisionist appears to have been written in words after erasing. However, no such erasure or interpolation is discernible in the entry of the date of birth recorded in numbers. Accordingly, the second submission advanced by the learned counsel for the informant is also devoid of substance and cannot be accepted. This Court further finds that, in the cross-examination of the Head Master of the school, no such questions were put to him with regard to the authenticity of the educational record. The direction issued by the Appellate Court for conducting ossification test of the revisionist is also not in consonance with Section 94(2)(iii) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. Since a school leaving certificate was available on record, falling within the ambit of Section 94(2)(i) of the Act, the direction for an ossification test by the Appellate Court was wholly illegal. Such a test could have been directed only in the absence of a school certificate as per sub- CRLR No. 6207 of 2024 2 section (i), or a birth certificate issued by the Panchayat, Municipality, or other competent authority under sub-section (ii). Accordingly, the Appellate Court's order dated 16.07.2024 is hereby set aside. Order of Juvenile Justice Board is upheld. The revision is accordingly, allowed. Let the lower court record be returned to the trial court forthwith. September 9, 2025 Rohit CRLR No. 6207 of 2024 3 (Siddharth,J.) Digitally signed by :- ROHIT DAS High Court of Judicature at Allahabad