CRR-1457-2025 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 267 CRR-1457-2025 Date of decision : 15.07.2026 CHANDER MOHAN ... PETITIONER Versus STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER ... RESPONDENTS CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S.GREWAL Present:- Mr. Mohit Khatkar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Vipul Sherwal, AAG, Haryana. Mr. Nonish Kumar, Advocate and Ms. Preeti Kashyap, Advocate for respondent No.2. *** H.S. Grewal, J.(Oral) 1. The present criminal revision petition has been filed under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, challenging the order dated 12.11.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal in Sessions Case No. SC-87 of 2023 arising out of FIR No. 667 dated 11.10.2022, registered under Sections 148, 149, 302 and 323 IPC at Police Station Gharaunda, District Karnal, whereby respondent No.2-Sunil was declared to be a juvenile after determining his age as 16 years, 9 months and 9 days and was directed to be dealt with by the Juvenile Justice Board, Karnal. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 10.10.2022, the police received information regarding a quarrel having taken place at New Jat Punjabi Dhaba, Araipura Road. Upon reaching the spot, it transpired that an altercation took place SONIA GUGNANI 2026.07.22 08.57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRR-1457-2025 -2- between two groups, resulting in the death of Neeraj and Manish. Consequently, the aforesaid FIR was registered and during the course of investigation, respondent No.2-Sunil was arrested. Subsequently, he moved an application before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal seeking declaration of juvenility. Vide the impugned order dated 12.11.2024, the said application was allowed by holding respondent No.2 to be 16 years, 9 months and 9 days of age on the date of occurrence. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has failed to appreciate the most reliable documentary evidence relating to the age of respondent No.2. It is contended that the admission record, school leaving certificate and the admission and withdrawal register of Government Model Sanskriti Primary School No.2, Gharaunda, where respondent No.2 studied from Classes I to III, consistently record his date of birth as 19.04.2004. It is further submitted that the statement of the father of respondent No.2 also supports the said date of birth. Learned counsel argues that despite the existence of conflicting material regarding the age of respondent No.2, the Court neither directed an ossification test nor conducted any further inquiry as envisaged under Section 94(2)(iii) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. It is further submitted that during investigation, the Investigating Officer procured a report from the Headmaster of the aforesaid school, which also records the date of birth of respondent No.2 as 19.04.2004, but the same was not considered by the learned Court while passing the impugned order. He has referred to the report of ASI Raj Kumar at Annexure P-5 in this regard. 4. Per contra, Learned State counsel, while referring to the reply filed by way of an affidavit of Mr. Manoj Kumar HPS, Deputy Superintendent of SONIA GUGNANI 2026.07.22 08.57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRR-1457-2025 -3- Police, Gharaunda, Karnal, submits that after completion of investigation, challan was presented against the accused persons. It is further submitted that respondent No.2 had moved an application before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal seeking declaration of juvenility on the basis of his Aadhaar Card reflecting his date of birth as 01.01.2006, which was accepted by the learned Court after due consideration. Learned State counsel has not disputed the report of ASI Raj Kumar (Annexure P-5) indicating that, as per the school record of Government Model Sanskriti Primary School No.2, Gharaunda, the date of birth of respondent No.2 was found to be 19.04.2004. It is submitted that these reports have already been brought on record before the competent Court and he, therefore, prays for dismissal of this petition. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 supports the impugned order and submits that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has rightly declared respondent No.2 to be a juvenile after considering the material available on record. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 7. It is an admitted position that during the course of investigation, ASI Raj Kumar obtained a report from Government Model Sanskriti Primary School No.2, Gharaunda. As per the admission register, school leaving certificate and other school records, the date of birth of respondent No.2 is recorded as 19.04.2004. The said report (Annexure P-5) was also placed before the learned Additional Sessions Judge. However, a perusal of the impugned order shows that no discussion or finding has been recorded with regard to this report. SONIA GUGNANI 2026.07.22 08.57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRR-1457-2025 -4- 8. Undoubtedly, the aforesaid report is a relevant piece of evidence, as it directly relates to the determination of the age of respondent No.2. Once such material was available on record, the learned Court was required to examine and consider the same before deciding the application seeking declaration of juvenility. Therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained and deserves to be set aside with a direction to the learned Court to decide the issue afresh after considering the said report as well as all other material available on record. 9. Consequently, the present revision petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 12.11.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal is hereby set aside. The matter is remanded back to the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal, to adjudicate the application seeking declaration of juvenility afresh after taking into consideration the report of the Investigating Agency, including the report of ASI Raj Kumar (Annexure P-5), and all other relevant material available on record, and thereafter pass a fresh order strictly in accordance with law, after affording adequate opportunity of hearing to all the concerned parties. 10. The parties shall appear before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal on 30.07.2026 at 10:00 A.M. for further proceedings. 11. Pending application, if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly. (H.S.GREWAL) 15.07.2026 JUDGE Sonia Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No SONIA GUGNANI 2026.07.22 08.57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh