Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:116591 Reserved on 4.7.2025 Delivered on 18.7.2025 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 121 of 2023 Revisionist :- Juvenile (X) Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Vijay Shantam Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Siddharth,J. Despite service of notice on opposite party no.2 dated 9.8.2023, no one has turned up to oppose this revision. Heard Ms. Megha, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Vijay Shantam, learned counsel for the revisionist; learned AGA for State-respondent and perused the material on record. The present criminal revision has been filed praying for setting aside impugned order dated 4.11.2022 passed by AD&SJ, (POCSO Act), Court no.1, Aligarh in Criminal Misc. Case No.344 of 2022 and declare the revisionist/ accused as juvenile involved in Case Crime No.86 of 2019, under Section 376 IPC and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Banna Devi, District Aligarh. It appears from the record that an application was moved before the Special Court on behalf of the revisionist praying for declaration that on the date of incident dated 30.1.2019, he was juvenile and his date of birth is 14.8.2001. In support of the application, a transfer application issued by School was produced by the mother of juvenile showing that on the date of incident, age of juvenile was 17 years, 5 months and 16 days. The Special Court has disbelieved the aforesaid transfer certificate on the ground that in the aforesaid certificate, name of mother of the student has been mentioned as Hakiki and name of her son has been mentioned as Bhatendra Singh. Name of juvenile is mentioned as Sunny. Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that name of the revisionist is Sunny @ Bhatendra Singh, but the Special court has recorded the finding that there is no evidence that name of the revisionist is Sunny @ Bhatendra Singh. In his arrest memo, his name has mentioned as Sunny. Learned counsel for the revisionist has further submitted that as per Section 94(2) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, if there is no reliable documentary evidence with regard to age of the revisionist, the court ought to have ordered ossification test of the juvenile to be conducted for determination of his correct age. Last argument of learned counsel for the revisionist has no force since per Section 94(2) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, where there is no documentary evidence with regard to age of the juvenile issued by the school or any examination board for corporation of municipal authority of Panchayant as per Sub Clause i & ii, the court is required to direct ossification test of the juvenile as per Sub Clause (iii), which as per revisionist has not been done in this case. In this case, there was document of school produced before the court, which was disbelieved by Court. As per Section 94 (2) of Act, only in the absence of education documents as per sub clause (i) and birth certificate as per sub clause (ii), ossification test as per sub clause (iii) could have been ordered. In this case ossification test was not required in view of availability of document of school. The order of children's court is justified and is, hereby, affirmed. The above noted criminal revision is dismissed. Office is directed to return the record of the trial court within a week. Order Date :- 18.7.2025 Ruchi Agrahari Digitally signed by :- RUCHI AGRAHARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad