The court emphasized that age determination in juvenile cases must primarily rely on credible documentation like birth certificates and school records, with ossification tests being a last resort in case of discrepancies.

ORDER :

SAURABH LAVANIA, J.

1. Heard Shri Manoj Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist; Shri Badrul Hasan, learned A.G.A. for the State, and above named counsel of opposite party nos. 2 and 3.

2. The present criminal revision, under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (in short "Act of 2015"), has been filed challenging the order dated 25.07.2025 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act), Bahraich (in short "Appellate Court"), in Criminal Appeal No. 52 of 2025 ( Rajneesh Kumar and Another Vs. State of U.P. and Others ).

3. Vide order dated 25.07.2025, the Appellate Court interfered in the order date 27.05.2025 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Bahraich (in short "JJB") in Case No. 124/12/2024 ( State Vs. Aslam ), arising out of Case Crime No. 626 of 2024, under Sections 109 , 352, 351(3), 3(5) of BNS , Police Station- Motipur, District- Bahraich.

4. Vide order dated 27.05.2025, the JJB, based upon the date of birth indicated in the birth certificate i.e. 02.08.2010, held that on the date of incident, i.e. 12.12.2024 the accused-juvenile was aged about 14 years, 4 months, and 10 days. The relevant portion of the order dated 27.05.2025 reads as under:

5. Being aggrieved, the informant filed the appeal, registered as Appeal No. 52 of 2025 (Supra). This appeal has been decided vide impugned order dated 25.07.2025. By this order, the Appellate Court interfered in the order dated 27.05.2025 passed by JJB and remanded the matter back to JJB directing to hold the ossification test of the accused-juvenile for coming to the conclusion regarding the age of the accused-juvenile at the time of incidence. The relevant portion of the order of the appellate Court dated 25.07.2025 reads as under:

6. In the aforesaid background of the case, the instant revision has been filed.

7. For coming to the conclusion as to whether interference is required in the order dated 25.07.2025 passed by the Appellate Court, this court considered the following facts, as brought to the notice of this court by learned counsel for the parties from the record.

(i) With regard to an incident occurred on 12.12.2024, an FIR was lodged on the same day i.e. on 12.12.2024 at Police Station- Motipur, District -Bahraich.

(ii) The FIR was registered as Case Crime No. 626 of 2024 and taking note of the allegations therein the same was lodged under Section - 109, 352, 351(3) BNS .

(iii) After investigation, charge sheet has been filed against the accused-juvenile under Sections 109 , 352, 351(3), 3(5) of BNS .

(iv) To avoid the rigors of provisions of the Act of 2015, according to which if an offence is committed by a minor aged between 16 to 18 years then in that eventuality he can be tried as an adult, an application was moved for determination of age of accused-juvenile.

(v) The application aforesaid was based upon the date of birth i.e. 02.08.2010 indicated in the mark sheet of the accused-juvenile of High School Examination of 2024 and Parivar Register.

(vi) To establish/proof the date of birth of accused-juvenile i.e. 02.08.2010, the father of the accused-juvenile, aged about 44 years, appeared before the JJB and his statement was recorded. According to the statement of father of the accused-juvenile before the JJB, the accused- juvenile studied at Government Primary School, Gopiya, from Class I to V.

(vii) Considering the statement of the father of the accused-juvenile, the Principal of Government Primary School, Gopiya, along with record, was summoned by the JJB.

(viii) Before the JJB, the Principal produced the school register, according to which the accused-juvenile was born on 03.07.2006. Relevant portion of the order of the JJB in this regard reads as under:

8.