SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(MP) 11125

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Govind – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
CRR 5420/2024



Advocates:
Kuldeep Dashora,Advocate General

##PAGE1##

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:37833

1 CRR-5420-2024

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT INDORE

BEFORE

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAJENDRA SINGH

CRIMINAL REVISION No. 5420 of 2024

G

Versus

THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

Appearance:

Shri Kuldeep Dashora - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Rahul Solanki - GA for the State.

(Heard on: 18.11.2025)

(Delivered on: 24.12.2025)

ORDER

This criminal revision under section 438 read with section 441 of the

BNSS, 2023 read with section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and

Protection of Children) Act, 2015 is preferred being aggrieved by order

dated 14.08.2024 by the Sessions Judge/ Special Judge, POCSO Act,

Neemuch District- Neemuch whereby the claim of juvenility of the revision

petitioner apprehended in connection with crime no.316/2024 registered at

P.S.- Neemuch City, District-Neemuch (M.P.) under section 363, 366,

376(3) of the IPC, 1860 and sections 4 read with section 3 of the POCSO

Act, 2012 has been rejected.

2. Facts of the case in brief are that in the above mentioned case the

revision petitioner was apprehended on 02.07.2024 and finding the date of

birth of the revision petitioner as 02.05.2025 recorded the revision petitioner

Signature Not Verified

Signed by: AJIT

KAMALASANAN

Signing time: 26-12-2025

11:05:31

##PAGE2##

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:37833

2 CRR-5420-2024

19 years old on date of incident. An application under section 9 of

the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 was

preferred claiming the juvenility on the basis of date of birth as 30.12.2006

on 30.07.2024. Trial judge proceeded for enquiry and statement of the father

was recorded as AW-1, Shri Mahesh Ramani, Assistant Grade-II in

Municipal Corporation Neemuch was recorded as AW-2 and documents

Exhibit-A/1 to Exhibit-A/5C were admitted. Prosecution examined Principal,

High School Javasa Seema Shukla as NAW-1 and Umesh Yadav, Inspector,

Police Station Neemuch City, District Neemuch as NAW-2 and adduced the

documents Annexure-NA/1C to Exhibit-NA/18C.

3. Special Judge, POCSO Act, Neemuch vide impugned order

recorded the finding that date of birth of the revision petitioner is 02.05.2025

and he was above 18 years of age on the date of incident and rejected the

claim of Juvenility of revision petitioner and dismissed the applications.

4. Challenging the impugned order this revision petition is preferred

on the ground that trial court committed error in rejecting the applications of

the revision petitioner ignoring the birth certificate (Exhibit-A/1) issued by

Registrar of Birth and Death, Nagar Palika, Neemuch and duly proved by

Registrar AW-2. Birth certificate (Exhibit-A/1) was issued years before the

alleged offence. Principal Seema Shukla (NAW-1) mentioned the date of

birth only on the information of the father of the revision petitioner and no

birth certificate or other documents was taken by the school authorities with

respect to the age of the revision petitioner. Revision petitioner referred to

the case of Rishipal Singh Solanki v. State of Uttar Pradesh 2021 SCC

Signature Not Verified

Signed by: AJIT

KAMALASANAN

Signing time: 26-12-2025

11:05:31

##PAGE3##

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:37833

3 CRR-5420-2024

Online SC 1079 and Devkishan Vs State of M.P 2021 SCC OnLine MP

2107 to substantiate the arguments in favour of Juvenility.

5. Heard.

6. Counsel for the respondent/State opposed the revision petitioner.

7. Perused the record.

8. Trial court has rejected the claim of Juvenility on the ground that

when there is conflict between the date of birth recorded in certificate issued

st

by the school in which revision petitioner got admitted in 1 standard and the

date of birth recorded in certificate issued by the municipal authorities, then

the date of birth recorded in certificate received from the school got

preference and court has to presume the correct date of birth as mentioned in

the certificate issued by the school and approved the date of birth as correct

date mentioned in the school record i.e. 02.05.2005. Further recorded the

f

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top