For age determination in juvenile cases, documentary proof outweighs medical testing, as specified in Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015.

JUDGMENT :

MANISH KUMAR, J.

1. Case called out.

2. No one put in appearance on behalf of the opposite party no. 2.

3. This Court, on 10.03.2026, passed the following order:-

"1. Case is adjourned today, as Sri Sushil Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for revisionist has sent an out of station slip.

2. List this case on 12.03.2026.

3. It is made clear that on the next dates of listing, the case would not be adjourned on account of non-appearance of learned counsel for the parties and appropriate orders would be passed in the first call even in absence of parties' counsel."

4. Considering the stop order dated 10.03.2026, this court proceeded to hear the present revision on merits.

5. Heard learned counsel for the applicant/revisionist and learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.

6. The present criminal revision has been preferred against the order dated 17.10.2025 passed by the Children Court/Special Judge, POCSO Act, Pratapgarh in Criminal Appeal No. 41 of 2025, as well as the order dated 23.05.2025 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Pratapgarh in Miscellaneous Case No. 36 of 2025.

7. The facts of the case are that an FIR dated 11.03.2025 has been lodged against the applicant under Sections 65 and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, along with Section 3/4(2) of the POCSO Act, 2012, Police Station Leelapur, District Pratapgarh alleging therein that the applicant forcibly outraged the modesty of the daughter of the informant, who is stated to be about 15 years of age, and also threatened her that in case she disclosed the incident to anyone, her family members would be killed. It is further alleged that a neighbour had seen the applicant while the applicant was leaving the house of the informant.

8. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant was a minor and he was aged about 15 years 2 months and 10 days at the time of the alleged incident. As per the High School marksheet issued by the Board, his date of birth is recorded as 01.01.2010. However, on behalf of the informant/complainant, the teacher of the primary school has produced the scholar register of Class V before the Board, according to which the date of birth of the applicant is recorded as 13.05.2009 as per which the applicant was 15 years, 8 months, and 29 days at the time of the alleged incident.

9. It is further submitted that the Juvenile Justice Board, in contravention of Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, referred the matter to the Medical Board for ossification test for determination of the age of the applicant, despite the fact that two documents were already available on record regarding the proof of date of birth of the applicant. The appeal preferred by the applicant before the Special Judge/POCSO Act was dismissed, affirming the order of the Board on the ground that there were two contradictory documents regarding the date of birth of the applicant.

10. Learned counsel for the applicant has further contended that under Section 94 of the Act, 2015 which provides that the date of birth recorded in the school certificate or matriculation certificate is to be considered for determination of age, and only in the absence of such documents, the birth certificate issued by a municipal authority or Panchayat is to be considered. It is only in the absence of both these categories of documents that medical opinion, including ossification test may be sought.

11. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the revision and submitted the Board has rightly ordered an ossification test for proper determination of age. However, he is u