Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010006002025 2025:GAU-AS:14400 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Rev.P./15/2025 ALFAJ ALI S/O HOBIBUR RAHMAN R/O VILL- PANDHOWA P.O. GORCHIGA, P.S. NORTH LAKHIMPUR, DIST. LAKHIMPUR, ASSAM PIN-787054 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR TO BE REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM 2:JAHANARA BEGUM W/O HARMUJ ALI R/O PHUKAN DOLONI P.O. PHUKAN DOLONI P.S. LALUK DIST. LAKHIMPUR ASSAM PIN-787023 Advocate for the Petitioner : ALHAJJ I UDDIN, MRS. ROMA ENGTIPI,MR ROBIUL HOQUE,MRS. R MOMTAZ Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MS. POOJA AGARWAL, AMICUS CURIAE (R-2) Page No.# 2/6 BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN ORDER Date : 28.10.2025 1. Heard Mr. Alhajj I Uddin, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heardMr. P.S Lahkar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam and Ms. Pooja Agarwal, learned Amicus Curiae for respondent No. 2. 2. By this application under Section 438/442 of the BNSS, 2023 R/W Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 05.10.2024 passed by Ld. Special Judge, POCSO, Lakhimpur, North Lakhimpur, Assam in Special POCSO Case No. 123/2024 arising out of Laluk P.S Case No. 139/2024 registered under Section 64 of BNS, 2023 R/W Section 6 of the POCSO Act and Section 9/10/11 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006. 3. By the said order, the Ld. Special Judge, POCSO, Lakhimpur, North Lakhimpur, Assam had rejected the plea of juvenility raised by the petitioner vide petition No. 1216/2024. 4. Mr. Alhajj I Uddin, learned counsel for the petitioner had placed the order dated 05.10.2024 passed by the Ld. Special Judge, POCSO, Lakhimpur, North Lakhimpur, Assam by which the Court below had observed that the date mentioned in the original Birth Certificate of the accused was 12.01.2007 whereas on examination of the S.D.M & H.O of Nowboicha PHC, Lakhimpur as Court Witness No. 1, it was found that in the birth register, for the year 2006 & Page No.# 3/6 2007, the date of birth of the accused person was mentioned as 11.12.2006. The said Court Witness had exhibited the register as exhibit C-1. The Ld. Court, on perusal of the discrepancy, arising in the original Birth Certificate and the Birth Register produced by the Court Witness No. 1, rejected the prayer of the accused person for declaring him as juvenile. 5. Mr. Alhajj I Uddin, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the date of birth mentioned in the Birth Certificate of the accused and the date of birth mentioned in the Birth Register reveals that the petitioner was minor even after considering both the dates mentioned in the said documents. He submits that in either case, the petitioner is a minor and as such, the Ld. Court should not have rejected the plea of the petitioner for declaring him as a juvenile. He further submits that under Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, the original birth certificate was considered as it is provided under the said Section as the second document to be considered and the petitioner is found to be a juvenile on the date of the occurrence on the basis of such document and as such, there cannot beany rejection on the plea of juvenility of the accused person. 6. On the other hand, Ms. Pooja Agarwal, learned Amicus Curiae for respondent No. 2 placesthe deposition of the Court Witness No. 1 who states that not only there is discrepancy in the date of birth mentioned in the original birth certificate and the birth register, but also there are discrepancies in the certificate date of registration of the petitioner. As such, she submits that both the documents i.e. the Page No.# 4/6 original birth certificate and the register of birth may not be believed in the facts of the case and the petitioner, on that count, cannot be declared as a juvenile. 7. I have heard learned counsel for both parties and have carefully gone through the records. Under Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, it is provided that for determining the age of the minor the first document that needs to be considered is the date of birth certificate from the school or the matriculation or equivalent certificate from the concerned examination board and in absence thereof, birth certificate given by a Corporation or Municipal Authority or a Panchayat and in absence thereof, the age may be determined by an ossification test or by any other latest medical age determination test. 8. In the instant case, it is noticed that the certificate of birth issued by the Directorate of Health Services showed that the date of birth of the petitioner is 12.01.2007. Whereas in the birth register, it is seen that the date of birth inserted in the same was 11.12.2006 and as such, there is discrepancy in the date of birth of the petitioner mentioned in the two certificates. It is also seen that in the said birth certificate, there is a difference in the date of registration of the certificate as in the certificate, date of registration is mentioned as 16.01.2007 and in the register of birth, it is mentioned as 06.01.2007. In view of the discrepancy, it is a settled position of law that the other recourse, as provided under Section 94 should have been taken. Page No.# 5/6 9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court had observed in many decisions that in case of two certificates displaying two different dates of birth, the authorities should take recourse to other process given under the Act. 10. Under Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, in absence of the date of birth certificate from the school or matriculation or equivalent certificate, birth certificate given by the Corporation or Municipal Authority may be considered and in absence thereof, an ossification test may be conducted. 11. In view of the same, the Court of Ld. Special Judge, POCSO, Lakhimpur, North Lakhimpur, Assam after finding that there are discrepancies in the documents submitted by the petitioner should have ordered for ossification test of the petitioner in order to find out his age as providedunder Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice(Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. 12. In view of the same, the order dated 05.10.2024 is set- aside and it is further directed that the Ld. Special Judge, POCSO, Lakhimpur, North Lakhimpur, Assam may follow the provisions of Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice(Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015and determine the age of the petitioner, as required under the law. 13. Petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Page No.# 6/6 Comparing Assistant