Page No.# 1/8 GAHC010260002024 2026:GAU-AS:2596 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Rev.P./493/2024 SADDAM ALI @ SADDAM HUSSAIN S/O MD. ABDUL MIYA @ ABDUL HAQUE R/O VILL- 6 NO. BASHBARI P.O. AOLAGURI, DIST.BONGAIGAON, ASSAM, PIN-783392 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM 2:BATASHI KHATUN W/O TAHUR UDDIN R/O VILL- ADITPUR P.S. KALGACHIA P.O. KALGACHIA DIST. BARPETA ASSAM PIN-78131 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A.I. AHMED, MS B DEVI,MR P SAH,MR A I AHMED Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR. W RAHMAN (R-2) Page No.# 2/8 BEFORE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER 20-02-2026 Heard Mr. A. I. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P. S. Lahkar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, for the State respondent No.1. Also heard Mr. W. Rahman, learned counsel for the informant/respondent No.2. 2. This is an application filed under Section 438 and 442 BNS, 2023 praying for setting aside and quashing the order dated 08.11.2024, passed in Special POCSO Case No. 57/2010 by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge- cum-Special Judge (POCSO), Barpeta. 3. It is submitted by Mr. Ahmed, learned counsel that the petitioner is innocent and he has not committed any such offence as alleged in the FIR. However, the case was registered against the present petitioner wherein he contested the case and the case is presently at the evidence stage. 4. During the trial of the case, they filed a petition before the learned Special Judge (POCSO) claiming that at the relevant time of incident, the accused was a juvenile and as per school certificate, his date of birth is 01.03.2003 and hence, at the time of the occurrence, he was only 17 years, 3 months 22 days. So took the ground of juvenility during the trial of the case and in that regard, learned Special Judge (POCSO) also called for the Headmaster of two schools and they deposed before the Court as CW.1 and CW.2 respectively. 5. Both the CWs accordingly appeared and the school certificates were produced wherein in both the school certificates, the date of birth of the petitioner is recorded as 01.03.2003 and there is no dispute in that regard. The Page No.# 3/8 question of genuineness is also not raised by the other side and those documents are accepted. The only ground of rejection of the prayer of the petitioner is that in his school certificate, his name has been wrongly recorded as Saddam Ali son of one Abdul Mia. In both the documents it is submitted that Saddam Ali, son of Abdul Mia, but only for the differences in the surname, his prayer was not considered by the learned Trial Court. 6. Further, Mr. Ahmed, learned counsel submitted that there is no evidence against the petitioner and the victim herself refused to go for any medical examination and on the basis of which the M.O. and the I.O. were also not examined by the prosecution during the trial of the case. 7. He further submitted that in Court record itself the name of the petitioner was recorded as accused Saddam Hussain @ Saddam Ali, when the order was passed on 28.06.2020 and at the same time, another order was also passed wherein also the name of petitioner was recorded as Saddam Hussain @ Saddam Ali. Further, he submitted that the petitioner is known as Saddam Hussain @ Saddam Ali and his father is also known as Abdul Mia @ Abdul Hoque, though in the school records his name is mentioned as Saddal Ali son of Abdul Mia. 8. Mr. Ahmed, learned counsel accordingly submitted that Saddam Hussain and Saddam Ali is one and the same person as well as his father Abdul Hoque and Abdul Mia is the one and the same person, though in the school register his name is recorded as Saddam Ali son of Abdul Mia. 9. In that regard Mr. Ahmed, learned counsel relied on a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashwani Kumar Saxena Vs. State of M.P. reported in 2012 Legal Eagle (SC) 453 wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Page No.# 4/8 Court expressed the view that the hyper technical approach should not be adopted while appreciating the evidence adduced by the accused in support of his plea of juvenility. 10. The birth certificate of the petitioner was also produced before the Court wherein also his name is recorded as Saddam Ali son of Abdul Mia. But without considering this aspect of the case and not even considering the statements of CWs 1 and 2, wherein it is categorically stated that at the time of admission in School, his date of birth was recorded as 01.03.2003. Accordingly, Mr. Ahmed, learned counsel submitted that without considering all these aspect of the case, the learned Special Judge had rejected the prayer of the present petitioner and did not consider that the accused petitioner was a juvenile at the time of the incident and hence being aggrieved with the said order, the present revision petition has been filed for setting aside and quashing the order dated 08.11.2024, passed in Special POCSO Case No. 57/2010 by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge (POCSO), Barpeta. 11. Mr. Lahkar, learned APP submitted in this regard that the case is presently at the stage of argument and till recording of the statement of the petitioner under Section 313 CrPC, he did not raise the issue of juvenility, nor he has disputed his name and all along his name was recorded as Saddam Hussain and not as Saddam Ali and the time of recording his 313 CrPC statement, the name of the petitioner was recorded Saddam Hussain, son of Abdul Mia. But, subsequently before the argument stage the issue was raised and the present petition was accordingly filed claiming that at the relevant time of incident, he was a juvenile. 12. Further Mr. Lahkar submitted that there is no supporting document to consider that Saddam Ali and Saddam Hussain is the one and same person or Page No.# 5/8 Abdul Mia @ Abdul Hoque is the one and same person. More so, the birth certificate which was annexed along with the petition was procured on 03.05.2024, i.e., after the incident which had occurred on 23.06.2020. 13. Mr. Lahkar accordingly submitted that there is no need of any interference in the order passed by the learned Special Judge and it has been passed rightly considering all aspects of the case. 14. Mr. Rahman, learned counsel appearing for the informant also submitted that there is no irregularity committed by the learned Special Judge while passing the order and rejecting the plea of juvenility. 15. All the documents which were annexed by the petitioner were procured in the year 2024 though the occurrence took place in the year 2020 and even the birth certificate was procured in the year 2024, which is much after the 2020. 16. Mr. Rahman, learned counsel further submitted that though two school leaving certificates were produced before the Court by the petitioner, but no photographs has been affixed in those school leaving certificates for any identification of the person for whom the school leaving certificates were issued by the school authority. Accordingly, it is submitted that he took the plea of juvenility only to avoid himself from this case, wherein allegation of rape of a minor girl is brought against the present petitioner. Accordingly, he submitted that this criminal revision petition is liable to be dismissed. 17. Heard the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides and I have also perused the case records. 18. This criminal revision petition has been filed challenging the order dated 08.11.2024, passed in Special (POCSO) Case No. 57/2010 by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge (POCSO), Barpeta. Page No.# 6/8 19. It is seen that after recording of the statement under Section 313 CrPC, the plea of juvenility was taken by the petitioner claiming himself to be juvenile at the relevant time of incident. The petition was accordingly heard and before hearing on the petition, the two Headmasters of the Schools where the accused was studying also called for as CW-1 and CW-2 and accordingly their statements were also recorded by the learned Special Judge before passing the order. 20. There is no issue of genuineness of the School certificates which were issued by CW-1 and CW-2 on the strength of the Headmasters of those two Schools. But only disputed question is that regarding the identity of the present accused petitioner in all the School Certificates, name of the present petitioner stated to be Saddam Ali, son of one Abdul Mia, wherein date of birth of the petitioner was recorded as 01.03.2003. The CWs 1 and 2 also exhibited those school certificates accordingly. 21. But in all the documents the name of the petitioner was stated as Saddam Ali, son of Abdul Mia, though the petitioner was arrested in connection with this case and he was forwarded in the name of Saddam Hussain, son of Abdul Hoque. To substantiate the fact that Saddam Hussain and Saddam Ali are one and same person and similarly his father i.e., Abdul Hoque and Abdul Mia are one and same person, no documents could be furnished by the petitioner. Further in the school certificates also no photographs is affixed as submitted by the learned counsel for the informant for any identification of the person on whose behalf the school certificates were issued claiming his date of birth as 01.03.2003. 22. Further, from the record it is seen that the birth certificate which is also annexed along with the petition is procured on 03.05.2024, i.e., subsequent to the date of occurrence, which is stated to be occurred in the year 2020. More Page No.# 7/8 so, in the said birth certificate also issued in the name of Saddam Ali, son of Abdul Mia and it is not the birth certificate of Saddam Hussain, son of Abdul Hoque. 23. Another issue raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the learned CJM while passing the order dated 28.06.2020 had recorded the name of the petitioner as Saddam Hussain @ Saddam Ali and similarly in another order passed on 29.07.2020, the learned Sessions Judge, Barpeta had recorded the name of the accused petitioner as Saddam Hussain @ Saddam Ali. But only for the said orders it cannot be held that the name of the accused is Saddam Hussain @ Saddam Ali and the name of accused Saddam Hussain @ Saddam Ali is recorded only as per the application filed before the concerned learned Trial Court. So only for recording the name of accused Saddam Hussain @ Saddam Ali cannot come to the conclusion that the present petitioner is Saddam Hussain @ Saddam Ali and he is the son of Abdul Hoque @ Abdul Mia. 24. As stated above, there is no documents at all to prove that Saddam Hussain @ Saddam Ali as well as Abdul Hoque @ Abdul Mia are one and same persons and the documents which were also produced before the Court reveals that the school certificates as well as the birth certificate were also issued in the name of Saddam Ali son of Abdul Mia. 25. Further, at the time of recording the statement of the accused under Section 313 CrPC also, he disclosed his identity as Saddam Hussain, son of Abdul Hoque and it is also seen that at the time of recording his statement under Section 313 CrPC, he did not take the plea that at the relevant time of the incident, he was a juvenile except his denial, he did not take any plea other plea in his statement recorded under Section 313 CrPC. Page No.# 8/8 26. So considering all these aspects of the case, this Court is of the opinion that there is no document to prove that Saddam Hussain @ Saddam Ali and Abdul Hoque @ Abdul Mia are one and same person, who as per the school certificate was born on 01.03.2003 to consider him as a juvenile at the relevant time of the occurrence. 27. Accordingly, this Court is of the opinion that the learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge (POCSO), Barpeta did not commit any error or mistake while passing the order dated 08.11.2024, in Special POCSO Case No. 57/2010 rejecting the plea of juvenility and hence, I do not find any reason to interfere with the said order. 28. Consequently, this criminal revision petition stands dismissed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant