Reserved On:- 16.09.2025 Delivered On:- 07.10.2025 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2166 of 2016 In Chamber HON'BLE SIDDHARTH, J. Photocopy of ossification test report of the revisionist sent by C.M.O., Fatehpur, has been placed by learned A.G.A, which is taken on record. 1. Sri Vimal Pandey, learned counsel for revisionist; Sri Sharad Saran Srivastava, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2; learned A.G.A for State-respondent and perused the material on record. 2. The present criminal revision has been preferred against the impugned judgment and order dated 27.06.2016 passed by Additional Session Judge / Special Judge SC/ST Act, Fatehpur in Crl. Appeal No. 75 of 2011, Pappu Sonkar vs. Jai Chandra, under Section 52 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 by which the order passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Fatehpur dated 24.08.2011 was set aside. 3. The Juvenile Justice Board by the order dated 24.08.2021 conducted the proceedings for declaration of the revisionist as juvenile. The revisionist produced photocopy of his school leaving certificate, school admission register of Adarsh Bal Vidyalaya, copy of Khakheru, scheduled caste scholarship certificate year 2002-2023 and photocopy of attendance register. The teacher of Adarsh Bal Vidhyalaya informed the Juvenile Justice Board that as per the school record, the revisionist 4. Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Arvind Agrawal, Jitendra Singh, Mangla Prasad Rai(Senior Adv.), Sakshi Jaiswal, Vimal Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Sharad Saran Srivastava Jai Chandra Sonkar .....Revisionist(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) took admission in class-1st on 06.07.1998 and his date of birth recorded as 09.02.1993. After passing class-4th, he left school on 10.05.2003. In the admission register, his name is recorded as serial no. 2080 with date of birth as 09.02.1993. He proved photocopy of documents from the school along with his hand writing and signatures thereon. During the cross-examination, he stated that the date of birth of revisionist was recorded on the basis of information given by his parents. In his cross-examination, he stated that he cannot tell the number of pages in the admission register but it was examined by B.S.A. In the school leaving certificate, the book number and serial number are not mentioned. Regarding the cutting made in the S.R register, he stated that earlier some other name of the revisionist was mentioned which was his nick name, thereafter, someone informed his formal name and after cutting in the register, the same was registered. He stated that no application was taken for correcting the name of the revisionist in the register. The date of birth recorded was on the basis of oral information given by the guardian. 5. He further stated that two schools are being run from the same office. Since the transfer certificate book of the other school, Madarsa Noorul Huda, was available transfer certificate was issued on the same. He testified that the signature of the then Principal, Mukesh Kumar, is present on the school leaving certificate. 6. The Juvenile Justice Board despite objection of the other side declared the revisionist as juvenile and directed his trial accordingly. 7. The Appeal No. 75 of 2011 preferred by the complainant-respondent no. 2 before the Children's Court allowed and the order of Juvenile Justice Board dated 24.08.2011 was set aside and hence this revision. 8. After hearing the rival submissions, this court finds that the Appellate Court after going through the evidence produced before the Juvenile Justice Board found that in the scholar register name of the revisionist was recorded at serial no. 2080 with date of birth as 09.02.1993 but on the same serial no. 2080 name of some other student was recorded which was deleted and in its place name of revisionist was mentioned. Similar cutting was made in the father's name also in the scholar register. 9. CRLR No. 2166 of 2016 2 The Appellate Court further found that this correction was made without taking any application in writing from the parents of offender and the correct father's name of offender was Ram Sajivan @ Punjabi but only 'Punjabi' was mentioned as his father's name. The Appellate Court found that by manipulating the scholar register, the name of revisionist was mentioned in place of some other student. Similar altercation was found by the Appellate Court in the school leaving certificate of the revisionist also and the transfer certificate was not on the format of school where he studied but on the format of another school which created suspicion in the minds of Appellate Court. 10. This Court finds that it is a case of dowry death. The deceased, who was the wife of the revisionist, was aged about 20 years at the time of her death. Therefore, the Appellate Court has rightly held that the revisionist could not have been below 20 years of age. 11. This Court does not find any illegality in the order passed by the Appellate Court. The Appellate Court has rightly set aside the order passed by the Juvenile Justice Board. 12. The order passed by the Appellate Court is hereby affirmed. 13. The revision, being devoid of merits, is hereby dismissed. 14. The revisionist shall be tried as an adult. 15. October 7, 2025 Rohit CRLR No. 2166 of 2016 3 (Siddharth,J.) Digitally signed by :- ROHIT DAS High Court of Judicature at Allahabad