Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010213092026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Rev.P./504/2026 MD ABU BAKKAR SIDDIK ALIAS ASISH ALIAS ABU BAKKAR SIDDIQUE REPRESENTED BY HIS FATHER MD. MOKSED ALI, S/O LATE HUTU DEWAN, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BHALUKABARI, P.S. CHAYGAON, DISTRICT KAMRUP, ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM 2:MAZIDA BEGUM W/O LATE AYUB ALI VILLAGE KATHABARI 4 NO. MASJID P.S. GARCHUK DISTRICT KAMRUP M ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR H R A CHOUDHURY, MR. I U CHOWDHURY,MR. SAYED SALIM AHMED Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, Page No.# 2/4 BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN ORDER Date : 29.09.2026 Heard Mr. HRA Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. SS Ahmed, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Ms. SH Bora, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. By this application filed under Section 102 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 read with Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 along with Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for setting aside the order dated 08.09.2026 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge cum Special Judge (POCSO), Kamrup(M) in Sessions (Special) Case No.98/2026 by which the claim of juvenility of the petitioner was rejected. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that the order was passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge cum Special Judge (POCSO), Kamrup(M), Guwahati on the basis of certain discrepancies found in the admission register as well as in the school certificate. It was held by the Court that the date of birth of the petitioner mentioned in the petition and his school certificate which was annexed as Annexure-D could not be accepted as correct date of birth and the said school certificate was not relied upon for proving the age of the petitioner. It was also held that date of birth of the petitioner was mentioned as 20.03.2007 in the admission register and if the age of the petitioner is counted by taking into consideration the date of occurrence, then it shows that the petitioner was 18 years 4 months and 18 days on the date of occurrence and as such it was considered that the petitioner was not minor. However, it is seen that the authority who has put the birth date on the admission register was not examined and the head master, who had issued the school certificate on the Page No.# 3/4 basis of the school admission register was examined and in the school certificate that was produced by the Head Master, the date of birth of the petitioner was written as 20.03.2009. In absence of the examination of the author, who had given the date of birth in the admission register, the said school certificate will not be relevant as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in number of decisions one of them being Birad Mal Singhvi Vs. Anand Purohit Reported in (1988) Supp SCC 604. 4. Under Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice Act, the procedure is laid down for determining the age of the person to find out as to whether the person was juvenile or not. The first evidence that should be obtained is through the date of birth certificate from the school or the matriculation certificate or equivalent certificate from the concerned examination board. In absence of the same, the birth certificate given by cooperation or a municipal authority or panchayat should be considered and in absence of the same, the age shall be determined by ossification test or by latest medical age determination test, conducted on the orders of the committee or the board. It is seen in the instant case that the school certificate which would come within the purview of the first evidence to be collected as provided under Section 94 of the Act was placed but the author of the school admission register on the basis of which the school certificate was issued was not examined and as such that certificate will not be of any probative value. In such a case, the second option left with the Court should be to find out any birth certificate given cooperation or municipality and in absence thereof, an ossification test should be directed to be conducted. Since in the instant case, it is seen that there are contradictions in the date of birth recorded in the school admission register and the certificate which again is not proved according to the law, the Court should have directed for an ossification test to Page No.# 4/4 be conducted with regard to the same. 5. As such, this Court finds it fit to remand the case to the Additional Sessions Judge cum Special Judge (POCSO), Kamrup(M) to consider that ossification test is required to be conducted in this case to determine the age of the petitioner, more so in view of the fact that the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 is a beneficial legislation. 6. Accordingly, the order dated 08.09.2026 is set aside with the direction to the learned Court to consider the case afresh by ordering an ossification test. 7. Petition is disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant