Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:137814 Reserved on 15.7.2025 Delivered on 13.8.2025 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3804 of 2024 Revisionist :- Akhilesh Kumar Tiwari Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Bhriguram Ji,Nilesh Kumar Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- Anurag Yadav,Brijesh Kumar Yadav,G.A.,Ray Sahab Yadav,Sushil Chandra Srivastava,Vinod Kumar Pandey,Vinod Kumar Yadav Hon'ble Siddharth,J. 1. Heard Sri Nilesh Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the revisionist; learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record. 2. The present criminal revision has been filed to set and aside the judgement and order dated 30.5.2025 passed by Children's Court/ Additional Sessions Judge/ Special Judge (POCSO Act), Jaunpur, in Criminal Appeal No. 58 of 2022 in Case Crime No. 121 of 2018, under Sections 147, 148, 307, 323, 504, 302 I.P.C, Police Station Sikrara, District Jaunpur as well as order dated 28.11.2018 passed by J.J. Board, Jaunpur. 3. After the court took cognizance on 19.9.2018 against opposite party no.2 for committing the offences under Sections 147, 148, 307, 323, 504, 302 I.P.C. an application was moved on his behalf stating that his date of birth is 01.7.2001 and he was juvenile at the time of commission of alleged offence on 14.6.2018. The statement of Head Master of Class I was recorded, who proved from the student register from Class 1 to IV that date of birth of respondent no.2 was 30.1.1998. Thereafter clerk of Class VIII was examined, who proved that the date of birth of respondent no.2 is 01.7.2001. Finding contradictions in the age of the accused, his ossification test was ordered and his age was asserted between 18-19 years. The Juvenile Justice Board gave margin of one year on lower side to respondent no.2 and held his age as 17 years on the date of incident. 4. On appeal, appellate court affirmed the age of respondent no.2 determined by Juvenile Justice Board as between 17-18 years, but directed preliminary assessment of respondent no.2 under Section 15 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act. The revision has been filed challenging the aforesaid orders passed by Juvenile Justice Board and also Children's Court. 5. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that as per Class I mark-sheet of respondent no.2, his date of birth was 30.1.1998 and therefore, it was his date of birth recorded in the school first attended within the meaning of Section 94(2)(i) of the Act. Once it was available, there was no justification for Juvenile Justice Board to get ossification test of respondent no.2 conducted. He has submitted that ossification test can only be directed to be conducted by the Board as per Section 94(2)(iii) when there is no educational certificate or birth certificate given by corporation or municipal authority or Panchayat as per sub clause (i) (ii). Only in the absence of aforesaid certificates ossification test report is required. 6. After hearing the rival contentions, this Court finds that burden of proof of the age was on the respondent no.2 and once contradictions were found in the date of birth recorded in the Class I and Class VIII, the date of birth claimed stood unproved. In such a situation resort to ossification test of respondent no.2 as per Section 94(2)(iii) of the Act was unjustified. 7. Both impugned orders suffer from apparent illegality and are, hereby, set aside. 8. The above noted criminal revision is allowed. 9. Respondent no.2 is declared as adult from his date of birth, i.e., 30.1.1998 recorded in Class I, on the date of incident dated 14.6.2018 and is directed to be tried by the Special court as such treating him as an adult. Order Date :- 13.8.2025 Ruchi Agrahari Digitally signed by :- RUCHI AGRAHARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad