Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:136113 Reserved On:-04.08.2025 Delivered On:-12.08.2025 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 6696 of 2023 Revisionist :- X Juvenile Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Manoj Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Purushottam Mani Tripathi Hon'ble Siddharth,J. 1. Heard Sri Manoj Kumar, learned counsel for the revisionist; Sri P.M. Tripathi, learned counsel for the informant; learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record. 2. This revision has been filed praying for quashing the judgment and order dated 24.11.2023 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge/Special Judge, POCSO Act, Court No.1, Gorakhpur, in Criminal Appeal No. 192 of 2023 (Shekhar Vs. State of U.P.) and order dated 04.02.2022, passed by Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Gorakhpur (State Vs. Shekhar) arising out of Case crime no. 155/2021, under section 376, 506 of IPC and Section 3/4 of the POCSO Act. 3. An application was made by mother of revisionist before the Juvenile Justice Board, Gorakhpur, praying for declaring that revisionist was juvenile on the date of incident dated 04.10.2021. The mother of the revisionist stated that she has five children. Her elder daughter is aged about 21 years; second son aged about 20 years; third son is aged about 18 years and fourth son is the revisionist aged about 15 years who studied up to class-4th and the fifth daughter is aged about 13 years, studying in class-7th. She produced the copy of the parivar register to prove the date of birth of the revisionist. A clerk from Sarvodya Siksha Niketan appeared before the Board and prove that the revisionist was admitted in this school in class 4th on 14.04.2018 and he studied in his school from April to September. In the register of the school his date of birth is recorded as 01.11.2005. He has not brought attendance register with him of Class-4th and has brought only S.R. Register. He further proved that prior to class-4th, the revisionist studied at his home. Thereafter, the ossification test of the revisionist was directed to conduct wherein his age was found to be 19 years. The Board found that there are contradictions in the statements of the mother of the revisionist and the witnesses from the school and the date of birth of the revisionist and, therefore, report of ossification test was called which proved his age as 19 years and on the date of incident his age came to be 18 years, 8 months and 20 days. 4. This Court finds that the date of birth of the revisionist was proved to be between 15 - 16 years and the ossification test report proved his age as 19 years. It is well settled law that margin of two years can be given in the ossification test report both the sides. Therefore given margin of two years on lower side, the age of the revisionist could be considered to be about 17 years and, therefore, he was juvenile at the time of incident. The mother of the revisionist stated that he was aged about 16 years and from school certificate also he was aged about 15 to 16 years. 5. In view of the above, the revisionist held to be juvenile on the date of incident. The orders of Childrens' Court and Juvenile Justice Board, suffer from illegality and are hereby set aside. 6. The revision is allowed. 7. The revisionist is directed to be tried as juvenile. Order Date :-12.08.2025 Abhishek Digitally signed by :- ABHISHEK YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad