Allahabad High Court
X- Juvenile vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 13 August, 2025
Author: Siddharth
Bench: Siddharth
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:137779 Reserved On:- 15.07.2025 Delivered On:- 13.08.2025 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2783 of 2024 Revisionist :- X- Juvenile Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Ravindra Prakash Srivastava,Vimlendu Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- Anjani Kumar Tripathi, Arvind Kumar, G.A., Maruti Kumar Tripathi Hon'ble Siddharth, J.
1. Heard Sri Vimlendru Tripath, learned counsel for the revisionist;Sri Maruti Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for opposite party no.2; learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.
2. This criminal revision has been preferred against the impugned judgment and order dated 15.04.2024 passed by Additional District and Session Judge / Special Judge (POCSO), Sant Kabir Nagar, in Criminal Appeal No. 20 of 2023 (Vimla Devi vs. State of U.P and Another), under Section 101 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, arising out of Case Crime No. 318 of 2021 (Samar Chaudhary vs. State of U.P. and Another), under Section 376 IPC and Section ¾ of POCSO Act, Police Station- Khalilabad, District- Sant Kabir Nagar.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the Juvenile Justice Board declared the revisionist juvenile by the order dated 29.09.2021 on the basis of his date of birth of 11.06.2004 recorded in school first attended. It found that on the date of F.I.R dated 24.05.2021 no date of incident was mentioned. The other date of birth of 01.08.2004 recorded in the intermediate college was disbelieved by the Juvenile Justice Board, Sant Kabir Nagar relying upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sanjeev Kumar Gupta vs. State of U.P., 2019 (12) SCC 744, where the Apex Court held that preference shall be given to the age recorded in school first attended and declared the revisionist as juvenile aged about 16 years, 11 months and 5 days.
4. The board further directed that preliminary assessment of the revisionist be conducted as per Section 15 of the Juvenile Justice Act. Thereafter, preliminary assessment of revisionist was conducted as per Section 15 of the Act on the basis of the questions put to him and it was found by the Board that the revisionist was not capable of understanding the consequences of heinous offence allegedly committed by him. Against the aforesaid order dated 17.11.2021 passed by Board, revisionist preferred appeal before the appellate court and appellate court has set aside the same by the impugned order dated 15.04.2024 holding that the revisionist is required to be tried as an adult by the Sessions Court.
5. Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the report of the District Probation Officer states that the revisionist's understanding of the consequences of his act was not developed. The Appellate Court has committed patent legal error in not taking the help of psychologist, psycho social worker and experts, like the J.J. Board.
6. The Apex Court judgment in the case of Barun Chandra Thakur vs Master Bholu in Criminal Appeal No. 950 of 2022, has held that calling from report from psychologist is not optional but mandatory for the board while making preliminary assessment into heinous offence allegedly committed by a juvenile. The word 'may' used for Section 15 shall be read as 'shall' and 'must'.
7. In view of the above, the order passed by Children's Court is set aside.
8. Since the order dated 17.11.2021 was passed by the J.J. Board, about 4 years have passed and keeping in view the mandate of Sections 14 and 15 of the Act direction for psychological assessment of the accused, when he has became adult, aged more than 21 years, may not be in the larger interest of justice. Even otherwise it is a case of consensual relationship between the revisionist and the victim which started at a tender age.
9. The victim was found to be aged about 20 years in her ossification test report while revisionist was found to be aged about 17 years only. It is not a case of exceptional nature as the 'Nirbhaya Case', rather it appears to be case of consensual relationship which later became bad.
10. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 15.04.2024 passed by the Special Judge, POCSO Act, Sant Kabir Nagar in Misc. Application No. 131 of 2024 in Criminal Appeal No. 0020 of 2023, Karan vs. State of U.P., is hereby quashed.
11. The criminal revision is allowed.
12. The revisionist shall be tried as a juvenile by Juvenile Justice Board, Sant Kabir Nagar.
Order Date :- 13.08.2025 Rohit