HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 644 of 2022 Court No. - 47 HON'BLE SIDDHARTH, J. 1. List has been revised. 2. None responds on behalf of the revisionist. 3. Heard Sri Afzal Ahmad Khan Durrani, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned AGA for State. 4. This criminal revision has been filed against the judgment and order dated 18.08.2021 passed by Sessions Judge in Juvenile Criminal Appeal No. 24/2021 as well as order dated 19.03.2021 passed by Juvenile Justice Board in Case Crime No. 36/2019, under sections 147, 342 of I.P.C., Police Station- Kayamganj, District- Farrukhabad. 5. The claim of juvenility was raised before the Juvenile Justice Board, Fatehgarh, District- Farrukhabad, by the revisionist claiming that his date of birth recorded in educational certificate is 08.10.2001 and on the date of incident dated 26.01.2019 he was juvenile. 6. In support of claim C.W-1, Vimal Kumar, father of the revisionist, was examined before the court. He stated that the revisionist studied for the first time in D.P.S. School, Pitaura, Kayamganj from class 1 to 5 and, thereafter, he studied in class-6th in C.P. Vidya Niketan Inter College, Kayamganj, and he still studying there. 7. C.W.-2, Principal of C.P. Vidya Niketan Inter College, Kayamganj, stated that the revisionist was admitted in his school in class-7th and his date of birth recorded in S.R. Register is 08.10.2001. He was admitted in his school Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Chandra Prakash Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Afzal Ahmad Khan Durrani, G.A. Yash Sakya .....Revisionist(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) on the basis of the transfer certificate of Sultan Alam Memorial School, Pitaura, Kayamganj. 8. During cross-examination he stated that revisionist took admission in class-11th and attended the school up to the 20.07.2018. Thereafter, he became absent. 9. C.W.-3, Headmaster of C.P. Vidya Niketan Inter College, Kayamganj, stated that the revisionist was admitted in his school in class nursery and studied up to class-3rd. He denied knowledge about the revisionist studying in class-2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th in Sultan Alam Memorial School. He stated that the date of birth of revisionist recorded in his school is 01.06.2000. 10. C.W.-4, Headmaster of Sultan Alam Memorial School, stated before the court that revisionist studied in his school in class-6th and passed the same in the year 2012. His date of birth recorded as per S.R. Register is 08.10.2001. He stated that the revisionist took admission in his school in clss-4th and transfer certificate was issued in his favour after he passed class-6th. While taking admission in class-4th, he did not filed any transfer certificate. 11. C.W.-5, Clerk of Nagar Palika Parishad, Kayamganj, proved that as per his record, the date of birth of revisionist is 08.10.2001 recorded on the bass of class-10th mark sheet. 12. The Board found that C.W.-2 proved the date of birth of the revisionist is 08.10.2001 as per transfer certificate of earlier school, Sultan Alam Memorial School. His admission was made in class-7th and after taking admission in class-11th, he became absent and, thereafter, his name was removed from the roll of the school. 13. C.W.-4 also proved his date of birth as 08.10.2001, but when he was admitted in class-4th, no transfer certificate of any school was produced. 14. The clerk of Nagar Palika Parishad, proved the age of the revisionist on the basis of High School Certificate as 08.10.2001. 15. C.W.-3, Headmaster of C.P. Vidya Niketan, proved that the revisionist studied in his school from class nursery to class-3rd and his date of birth was recorded as 01.06.2000. CRLR No. 644 of 2022 2 16. The Board found that date of birth recorded in the first school of revisionist was 01.06.2000 as per section 94(2)(i) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children Act) 2015 and determined his age as 18 years, 07 months and 25 days on the date of incident dated 26.01.2019. The aforesaid order was affirmed by the appellate court. 17. This Court after hearing the learned AGA on behalf of respondent no.1 and respondent no.3, Sri Afzal Ahmad Khan Durrani, does not finds any illegality in the orders impugned before this Court. They are in accordance with section 94(2)(i) of the Act aforesaid. 18. Accordingly, the orders of the courts below are confirmed. 19. The revision is dismissed. 20. Office is directed to return the trial court record to the trial court and notify this judgment also to the trial court within period of two weeks. September 25, 2025 Abhishek CRLR No. 644 of 2022 3 (Siddharth,J.) Digitally signed by :- ABHISHEK YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad