1 2025:CGHC:60006 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1499 of 2025 Omprakash @ Konda S/o Late Shri Komal Khairwar Aged About 19 Years R/o Sandhipara Dhanuhar Mohalla Ratanpur, Police Station Ratanpur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer Police Station Ratanpur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Applicant : Ms. Yogisha Singh Rajput, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Ms. Nupur Trivedi, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 10/12/2025 1. With the consent of the parties, the present matter is heard finally. 2. Heard on I.A. No. 02/2025, application for condonation of delay in 2 filing of criminal revision. 3. On due consideration and for the reasons mentioned therein, I am inclined to allow I.A. No. 02/2025 and the delay of 7 days is hereby condoned. 4. The present criminal revision has been filed by the applicant under Section 438 and 442 of BNSS, 2023 against the impugned order dated 18.08.2025 passed by learned Special Court (SC/ST Act, 1989), Bilaspur (C.G.) in Sessions Case No. 126/2025 (arising out of Crime No. 133/2025, P.S. Ratanpur). 5. Brief facts of the case leading to disposal of this criminal revision is that the applicant was arrayed an an accused in Crime No. 133/2025 registered under Sections 103 & 238 of BNSS, 2023 at Police Station- Ratanpur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.). At the very inception of the trial, the applicant filed an application before the learned trial court stating that his date of birth is 17.06.2008, and on the date of the alleged incident, he was 17 years old, thus a juvenile under the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children Act,2015) as amended in 2021. In support of the said application, the applicant has annexed the Marksheet of Class IV and a copy of the Admission and Withdrawal Register of Government Primary School, Sandhipara, Ratanpur, District- Bilaspur, showing his date of birth as 17.06.2008. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the trial court has erred in passing the impugned order dated 18.08.2025. the learned trial court has failed to appreciate that under Section 94(2) 3 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 the date of birth certificate from the school or the matriculation certificate is the primary and conclusive evidence for age determination. The school admission register and Class IV marksheet produced by the applicant clearly show his date of birth as 17.06.2008 yet the court erroneously discarded them. The trial court wrongly placed reliance on the approximate oral statements of the applicant and his parents, even though they themselves admitted to not knowing the exact date of birth. The applicant only mentioned his age “by assumption”, which cannot override documentary evidence maintained in due course of school records. The trial court erred in treating the teacher’s statement- that the entry was made by a previous teacher- as a ground to disbelieve the school record. The fact remains that the admission register belongs to the applicant’s school and the entry of date of birth exists in its original records, which ought to have been relied upon. She further submits that under Section 12(1) of JJ Act, 2015, a person apparently a child shall not be sent to jail but should be released on bail or placed in an Observation Home. Despite the petitioner’s claim of being a juvenile and the availability of school records, he was lodged in Central Jail, Bilaspur, contrary to the mandate of law. The object of the Juvenile Justice Act is reformative and welfare-oriented. The trial court has ignored this legislative intent and adopted a hyper- technical approach, thereby causing grave prejudice to the 4 petitioner. 7. Learned State counsel opposed the contention of the applicant. 8. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 9. Section 94 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 shows that: (1) Where, it is obvious to the Committee or the Board, based on the appearance of the person brought before it under any of the provisions of this Act (other than for the purpose of giving evidence) that the said person is a child, the Committee or the Board shall record such observation stating the age of the child as nearly as may be and proceed with the inquiry under section 14 or section 36, as the case may be, without waiting for further confirmation of the age. (2) In case, the Committee or the Board has reasonable grounds for doubt regarding whether the person brought before it is a child or not, the Committee or the Board, as the case may be, shall undertake the process of age determination, by seeking evidence by obtaining— (i) the date of birth certificate from the school, or the matriculation or equivalent certificate from the concerned examination Board, if available; and in the absence thereof; (ii) the birth certificate given by a corporation or a municipal authority or a panchayat; (iii) and only in the absence of (i) and (ii) above, age shall be determined by an 5 ossification test or any other latest medical age determination test conducted on the orders of the Committee or the Board: Provided such age determination test conducted on the order of the Committee or the Board shall be completed within fifteen days from the date of such order. (3) The age recorded by the Committee or the Board to be the age of person so brought before it shall, for the purpose of this Act, be deemed to be the true age of that person. 10. The present petition has been preferred challenging the order dated 28.08.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Bilaspur, whereby the application filed by the petitioner/accused seeking declaration of juvenility and transfer of the case to the Juvenile Justice Board was rejected, holding the petitioner to be a major at the time of the alleged incident. 11. The case of the petitioner is that the learned trial court failed to properly appreciate the evidence on record relating to the age of the petitioner. It is contended that in the School Admission Register, the date of birth of the applicant is mentioned as 17.06.2008. The school ecords supports the petitioner’s claim that on the date of incident he was juvenile. However, on the basis of the statements of the witnesses, the Special Court had discarded the birth entries mentioned in the school admission register. The parents of the petitioner are admittedly illiterate and unaware of the exact date of birth of the applicant. 6 12. It is well settled that in matters concerning juvenility, keeping in view the benevolent object of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act. The approach of the court must be child-centric, and strict proof of age is not required. 13. In the present case, the prosecution has failed to establish beyond doubt that the petitioner had attained the age of 18 years on the date of the alleged incident. The finding recorded by the learned trial court holding the petitioner to be a major is based on conjectures and an improper appreciation of evidence and, therefore, cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. 14. Accordingly, the present criminal revision is allowed and the impugned order dated 28.08.2025 is set aside. 15. The matter is remanded back to the Special Court (SC & ST Act, 1989), Bilaspur and is directed to conduct further enquiry and pass a fresh order in accordance with law/rules and regulations expeditiously as soon as possible, if there is no legal impediment. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE Madhurima