Reserved On:-23.09.2025 Delivered On:-07.10.2025 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3096 of 2025 In Chamber HON'BLE SIDDHARTH, J. 1. Heard Sri Surendra Mohan Mishra, learned counsel for the revisionist; learned AGA for the State-respondent no.1; Sri Khurshed Alam, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and perused the material on record. 2. This Criminal Revision has been filed against the judgment and order dated 22.04.2025 passed by the Additional District and Sessions/Special Sessions Judge, POCSO Court No.1, Deoria, in Criminal Appeal No. 28/2025 arising out of Case Crime No. 145 of 2022, under section 302/34 of I.P.C., Police Station- Gauri Bazar, District Deoria, as well as the judgment and order dated 30.07.2024 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Deoria, Misc No. 08/2024. 3. After determination of the age of the revisionist as 16 years, 4 months and 10 days, he was subjected to preliminary assessment. The Board declared him as Juvenile liable to be tried as adult as per Section-18 (3) of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2015 since he was implicated for committing heinous offence of murder. The Juvenile Justice Board held that it has questioned the revisionist and has come to conclusion that he was capable of understanding the consequences of the act committed by him. It further held that the time line provided under Section 14(3) of the Act is not mandatory as held by the Apex Court in the case of Child in conflict with law, through his Mother versus The State of Karnataka and Another, AIR 2024 (SC) 353. On Appeal the order Juvenile Justice Board dated 30.07.2024 was upheld by the Judgment and Order dated 22.04.2025. 4. The Learned Counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the court's below have committed patent illegality in declaring the revisionist as adult for the purpose of trial into the heinous offence committed by him. 5. The Leaned Counsel for the State and the opposite party no.2 have vehemently opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the revisionist. They have Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Surendra Mohan Mishra, Vikas Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Khurshed Alam, G.A. R Juvenile .....Revisionist(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) submitted that it is a case of double murder and the appellate court has found that the revisionist is a good student having secured more than first class marks in High School. Therefore his intelligence cannot be doubted. The report of the Psychologist has found him as the case of border line intelligence, but on interview by the Juvenile Justice Board, the revisionist was found capable of understanding the consequences of the offence and the circumstances in which committed the alleged offence. He was mentally and physically capable of such offence. 6. In view of the above, the order Judgments and Orders passed by the Court below do not call for any interference are hereby affirmed. 7. The revision is dismissed. October 7, 2025 Abhishek CRLR No. 3096 of 2025 2 (Siddharth,J.) Digitally signed by :- ABHISHEK YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad