Allahabad High Court
Javed vs State Of U.P. And Another on 6 October, 2025
Author: Siddharth
Bench: Siddharth
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:176100
Reserved On:-17.09.2025 Delivered On:-06.10.2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 929 of 2024
Javed
.....Revisionist(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s)
:
Dharmendra Pratap Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
G.A., Manoj Kumar Rai
In Chamber
HON'BLE SIDDHARTH, J.
1. List has been revised.
2. No one responds on behalf of respondent no. 2.
3. Heard Sri Krishna Deep Singh, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Dharmendra Pratap Singh, counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A for the State-respondent and perused the material on record.
4. The revision has been filed against the judgment and order dated 09.02.2024 passed by Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 6, Muzaffar Nagar, in S.T. No. 1582 of 2007(State Vs. Liyakat and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 170 of 2000, under sections 147, 148, 307, 504, 506 of I.P.C., Police Station-Chappar, District- Muzaffar Nagar.
5. An application was moved by the revisionist before the Sessions Court under section 9 (2) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children), Act 2015 praying that the date of birth of the revisionist is 01.01.1989 and, therefore, on the date of incident dated 14.07.2000, he was aged about 11 years, 6 months and 18 days only and was juvenile. The same date of birth of revisionist is mentioned in parivar register and his adhar card. Photocopies whereof he filed alongwith his application.
6. C.W.-1, Urdu Teacher of Madarsa Islamiya Arabiya Bahrul Ulum, Gram- Kishanpur, Police Station- Bhopa, District- Muzaffarnagar, appeared before the court and stated that the revisionist studied in his Madarsa up to class 4th and date of birth mentioned in Madarsa in 07.04.1984. In S.R. register his name finds place at serial no. 3144, he had brought the register no. 8/2011 alongwith him. The register is in urdu and he has brought its hindi translation which he filed before the court. He proved the original register bearing signature of the Principal of the Madarsa thereon and the translation of its contents in his handwriting
7. During cross-examination, he stated that he is employed in the madarsa since last 6 years. In further cross-examination on the next date he claimed that he is teacher in the madarsa for last 7 years. 25 teachers and one head master are working in the madarsa. He admitted after going through his affidavit filed before the court that he has mentioned himself as head master of the madarsa. He stated that in his statement he admitted himself to be teacher only. He stated that he issued certificate dated 22.08.2023 in favour of revisionist and he never issued any certificate dated 13.10.2022 as per the record. He stated that the date of birth of revisionist mentioned as 01.01.1984 is correct and certificate was accordingly issued on 13.10.2022. The revisionist never gave any application that his earlier certificate has been lost and may be given second copy of the same. The revisionist was admitted in madarsa in December, 2001 in class 4th. He does not knows where the revisionist studied from class 1 to class 3rd. There is no transfer certificate of revisionist or affidavit available in this regard regarding his date of birth. He has brought on record S.R. register of 2001 to 2002 but it was not counter-signed by Basic Education Officer or any checking authority. It did not bore signatures of any officer of madarsa.
8. C.W.-2, the Secretary of Gram Panchayat, proved that the extract of Parivar Register filed in court is as per the original register which he had brought. He certified its photocopy and filed the same in Court. The date of birth of revisionist was mentioned in the family Parivar Register as 01.01.1989. He further admitted that the date of birth recorded in the parivar register is as per the information given by the parents of the revisionist.
9. The Sessions Court found that in this case there are two dates of birth of the revisionist proved from the school record and the record of panchyat. In his school his date of birth has been mentioned as 01.01.1984 while in his parivar register his date of birth is mentioned on 01.01.1989. The court has found that the revisionist has tried to mislead the court and obtain order in his favour. The court has held that in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Parag Bhati Vs. State of U.P. (2016) 12 SCC 744 an accused cannot be permitted to take shelter of the court on flimsy grounds after committing the heinous offence.
9. After considering the rival submissions and perusing the judgment and order of the court below, this Court is of the view that there is no error in the judgment and order passed by the court below. It is hereby affirmed.
10. The revision is dismissed.
(Siddharth,J.) October 6, 2025 Abhishek