Allahabad High Court
X (Minor) vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 18 August, 2025
Author: Siddharth
Bench: Siddharth
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:139704 Reserved On:-15.07.2025 Delivered On:-18.08.2025 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2704 of 2022 Revisionist :- X (Minor) Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Chandra Prakash Misra,Sushil Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Siddharth,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist; learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.
2. This criminal revision has been filed against the order dated 16.06.2022 passed by the Addl. District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO) Act, Court No. 1, Kushinagar at Padrauna, in Misc. Application No. 238/2022 (Kartik Kushwaha Vs. State of U.P. and another), arising out of case crime no. 75/2021, under sections 363, 366, 376 of IPC and 3/4 of POCSO Act, Police Station- Barwapatti, Distriti- Kushinagar.
3. An application was filed before the Special Judge, POCSO Act, Kushinagar, at Padrauna on behalf of the accused pleading that as per parivar register his date of birth recorded is 01.01.2005 and, therefore, on the date of incident dated 02.12.2021 he was aged about 16 years, 4 months and 12 days.
4. To prove his claim the revisionist filed copy of the parivar register partly certified by the Secretary Gram Panchayat, Laxmipur Bujurg, Block- Tamkuhi, Kushinagar.
5. The Special Judge, POCSO, discarded the aforesaid evidence produced as per section 94 (ii). The copy of the parivar register was held not admissible in evidence as per sub-clause- (ii).
6. Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the family register was produced by the revisionist before the Special Judge to prove that he was below 18 years of age on the date of incident and the Secretary of the Panchayat concerned had duly certified it. He has submitted that the instead of summoning the witness from the panchayat concerned and ascertaining the age recorded in the parivar register, the court held it to be not admissible in accordance with law.
7. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the revisionist and has submitted that the Special Judge has rightly rejected the claim of the revisionist.
8. After hearing the rival submissions, this Court finds that the parivar register produced before the Special Court was not a public document, but was a documentary evidence regarding the date of birth of the revisionist and, therefore, it was required to be proved in accordance with law by the competent witness. It cannot be said to be an evidence as per section 94 (ii) of the Act without its formal proof. The date of birth certificates are issued by the Corporation or Municipal Authority, but for proving the date of birth on the basis of panchayat's records, the parivar register can be produced before the court but it is only required to be considered by the court after getting it duly proved by the competent witness.
9. In view of the above, the judgment of the special court cannot be sustained and is hereby set aside.
10. The court is directed to summon the competent witness for proving the parivar register before the court and the basis on which the entry of date of birth of revisionist was recorded by the panchayat in the parivar register. Thereafter, the determination of age of the revisionist shall be made afresh. This exercise shall be carried out within period of six weeks from the presentation of this order before the Special Court concerned.
11. The revision is allowed.
12. Office will return the record of the trial court within a week.
Order Date :-18.08.2025 Abhishek