Reserved On:- 25.09.2025 Delivered On:- 09.10.2025 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 108 of 2025 In Chamber HON'BLE SIDDHARTH, J. Heard Sri Rahul Singh Dahiya, learned counsel for the revisionist; Sri Pradeep Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2; learned A.G.A for State and perused the material on record. 1. The present criminal revision is being preferred against the judgment and order dated 11.10.2024 passed by the Juvenile Court/Special Judge (POCSO Act), Bulandshahr, in Criminal Appeal No. 90/2024 (Krishanpal Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Another) as well as the order dated 03.07.2024 passed by the Principal Magistrate/Chairman, Juvenile Justice Board, Bulandshahr in Misc. Case No. 131/2024 (State Vs. Tapesh Bhati), in Case Crime No.128/2024, under Section 366, 363, 120B I.P.C. & 16/17 POCSO Act, Police Station Kakod, District Bulandshahr. 2. An application was filed on behalf of the opposite party no. 2- Juvenile dated 28.05.2024 by his father, praying that that date of birth of his son as per High School Examination of 2021 is 24.12.2006 and therefore, on the date of incident dated 12.04.2024, he was juvenile aged about 17 years, 3 months and 8 days. 3. The informant-revisionist filed his objections stating that the age of the opposite party no.2 is 24 years and he is trying to mislead the court and get himself declared as juvenile. His ossification test report may be 4. Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Rahul Singh Dahiya Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Pradeep Kumar Mishra, G.A., Rajendra Prasad Krishanpal Singh .....Revisionist(s) State Of U.P. And Another .....Opposite Party(s) called from the Chief Medical Officer in the interest of Justice. Before the Juvenile Justice Board, Bulandshahar, the father of juvenile, Umesh Bhati, appeared as C.W.-1 who stated that the age of his son is 24.12.2006, he was admitted in Class-Ist in K.P.R.D Public School, Hasanpur Baksua. He studied in the aforesaid School from Class-I to V. From Class-VIth to Xth he studied in Bhanwarpal Inter College, Akalpur, Gautam Buddh Nagar. During cross examination he stated that he got the date of birth of his son recorded on the oral basis. He has not got Birth Certificate of any of his child issued. In further cross examination, he stated that he does not remembers the date of birth of his son. He further stated that he got his son admitted in Class-IV in K.P.R.D Public School after informing his date of birth orally in school. He denied that his son studied in any other school except K.P.R.D Public School. 5. C.W.-2. Incharge Principal of Bhanswarpal Singh Kanya Inter College stated before the Court that the Juvenile- respondent no.2 was admitted in his College on 01.08.2019 in Class- IX. Earlier he was admitted in Class- VIth of Smt. Savita Devi Kanya Junior High School Akalpur in Class- VIth on 23.07.2016. The aforesaid School is part of Bhanwarpal Singh Kanya Inter College. Prior to admission in Class-VI transfer certificate of K.P.R.D Public School was produced regarding studies from Class-VI to Class- X in his School and date of birth of juvenile was recorded as 24.12.2006. C.W.-2 produced the documentary evidence regarding studies of Juvenile – Opposite party no. 2 from Class-VI to Class-X. 6. C.W.-3, Head Master of K.P.R.D. Public School proved that the Juvenile- Opposite party no.2 studied in his School in Class- IV and Class- V. His date of birth is recorded as 24.12.2006 in the S.R. Register, admission form and attendance register. In cross examination, she admitted that at the time of admission of Juvenile-opposite party no. 2 in her School no birth certificate was produced by her parents. After passing Class-Vth his parents got transfer certificate issued. The Juvenile Justice Board refused to order ossification test of the juvenile on the ground that due to availability of educational certificates of the juvenile, opposite party no.2, there is no requirement of issuing direction for ossification test keeping in view mandate of Section-94(2) of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Childreds) Act, 2015. 7. CRLR No. 108 of 2025 2 The Appellate Court has affirmed the order passed by the Juvenile Justice Board and hence this revision. 8. After hearing the rival submissions and going through the evidence on record, this court finds that the Courts below have not committed any legality in determination of the issue of juvenility, therefore the judgments and orders passed by the Courts below are affirmed. 9. The revision lacks merits and are hereby dismissed. 10. Let the lower court record be returned within a week. 11. October 9, 2025 Rohit CRLR No. 108 of 2025 3 (Siddharth,J.) Digitally signed by :- ROHIT DAS High Court of Judicature at Allahabad