Educational certificates must be prioritized over medical evaluations in age determination cases under the Juvenile Justice Act.

JUDGMENT :

JAI PRAKASH TIWARI, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the entire material available on record.

2. This criminal revision has been filed under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 for setting aside the order dated 25.08.2025 passed by learned Special Judge (POCSO)/Additional Sessions Judge, Room No. 13, Saharanpur in Criminal Appeal No. 28 of 2025, titled X through its natural guardian/mother vs. State of U.P. and another and the order dated 19.3.2025 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Saharanpur in Misc. Case No. 04 of 2025; arising out of Case Crime No. 475 of 2025, under Sections 103(1), 3(5) B.N.S. and Section 3/25/27 Arms Act, Police Station Rampur Maniharan, District Saharanpur, whereby the Juvenile Justice Board determined the age of the revisionist on the basis of radiological report/medical report dated 27.02.2025 as well as 10.03.2025 instead of the date of birth mentioned in the High School Marksheet of the revisionist as '12.12.2008'.

3. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that a FIR regarding alleged incident was lodged on 14.12.2024 against the X Juvenile and others with the allegations that on the same day at about 08:00 AM, the son of the informant aged about 17 years went at Chaudhary Medical Stores, where he was sweeping at the shop. At that time, the minor accused came with country-made pistol and assaulted the son of informant by which he received injuries in his stomach, thereafter, he was admitted in the hospital in serious condition and later on died. It is submitted that at the time of incident, the revisionist X Juvenile was minor and he was falsely implicated in the subject case and on the date of incident, he was aged about 16 years and 2 days and as per his educational certificates, his date of birth is 12.12.2008, and there is no discrimination of the date of birth in any document. Thereafter, his mother was filed an application for declaration of juvenility of his son. It is next submitted that after issuance of notices, the Juvenile Justice Board vide its order dated 27.02.2025 directed the Chief Medical Officer, Gautam Budh Nagar to medically examine the X juvenile for determination of his age. Thereafter, vide order dated 19.03.2025, the Juvenile Justice Board, Saharanpur determined the age of the minor as 17 years, 09 months and 4 days as per medical report dated 10.03.2025 of the CMO concerned. It is next submitted that being aggrieved by the order of Juvenile Justice Board, the revisionist filed a criminal appeal on the ground that the date of birth of the X Juvenile as mentioned in the high school certificate should have been given preference instead of determination of age by medical examination of the minor. It is further submitted that the appellate court also failed to consider the above fact and dismissed the appeal of the revisionist affirming the order dated 19.03.2025 passed by Juvenile Justice Board. The order of the appellate Court has been challenged on behalf of the revisionist through his natural guardian before this Court.

4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the revisionist that the impugned order has been passed against the settled principles of law and against the provisions of Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice Act and therefore, the impugned order is not sustainable in law.

5. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the revisionist and has submitted that the judgment of the appellate court is in accordance with law.

6. For deciding the present controversy, a perusal of Section 94 of the