Madhya Pradesh High Court
Child In Conflic With Law Through Its ... vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 27 January, 2026
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:1943
1 MCRC-33270-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 33270 of 2025
CHILD IN CONFLIC WITH LAW THROUGH ITS FATHER RANDEEP
SINGH BHADORIYA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri M.P.S. Raghuwanshi - Senior Advocate along with Shri Shri R.K.
Shrivastava and Shri V.K. Jha - Advocates for the petitioner.
Ms. Anjali Gyanani - Public Prosecutor for the State.
Shri Pradeep Katare - Advocate for the complainant.
RESERVED ON :- 15/01/2026
DELIVERED ON :- 27/01/2026
ORDER
The present petition, under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 04.07.2025 passed by the learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Bhind in Criminal Revision No.44 of 2025, whereby the order dated 19.03.2025 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhind in Criminal Case No. 638 of 2024, arising out of Crime No.138 of 2024 registered for offences punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, has been affirmed.
Short facts of the case are that in Crime No.138 of 2024 registered at Police Station City Kotwali, Bhind, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Bhind, NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:1943 2 MCRC-33270-2025 vide order dated 19.03.2024, conducted a preliminary inquiry with respect to the juvenile in conflict with law (hereinafter referred to as ''the applicant'') and, extending the benefit of doubt, held him to be below 18 years of age as on the date of incident i.e. 08.03.2024. Aggrieved by the said order, the prosecution as well as Vinod Kumar Jain preferred revision petitions, which were jointly decided by the Revisional Court in Criminal Revision No.23 of 2024. Vide order dated 12.07.2024, the Revisional Court had directed the Trial Court to conduct a fresh judicial inquiry, keeping in view all relevant aspects, and to arrive at a conclusion regarding age determination after affording opportunity to both parties to adduce evidence. Pursuant thereto, in compliance with the said directions, the learned Trial Court conducted an age inquiry in respect of the applicant, Vishal Bhadoria, and after considering the evidence and arguments of both sides, passed the impugned order dated 19.03.2025 holding the applicant's date of birth as 08.06.2005 to be correct and, consequently, found that the applicant was aged about 18 years and 09 months on the date of incident i.e. 08.03.2024, and therefore, doesn't fall within the definition of a "child" under Section 2(12) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner had preferred Criminal Revision No.44 of 2025, which was also dismissed by the learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Bhind vide order dated 04.07.2025 and the order dated 19.03.2025 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class Bhind, was confirmed. Hence, the present petition.
Shri M.P.S. Raghuwanshi - learned Senior Advocate along with Shri Shri R.K. Shrivastava and Shri V.K. Jha - Advocates for the petitioner NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:1943 3 MCRC-33270-2025 submitted that the orders passed by the learned Courts below after remand are wholly illegal and run contrary to the mandatory provisions of Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, as Section 94 of the Act of 2015 prescribes a complete statutory mechanism for presumption and determination of age and gives primacy to the date of birth recorded in school records or matriculation or equivalent certificates issued by the concerned examination Board and only in the absence of such documents can recourse be taken to a birth certificate issued by the local authority and thereafter, as a last resort, to medical age determination tests.
It was further submitted that both the Courts below have categorically recorded that the date of birth of the applicant as reflected in the school records from Class I to IV is 08.06.2005, whereas the applicant's date of birth recorded from Class I to Class XII, including the Board mark-sheets, was 02.07.2006 and if the date of birth recorded in the Board mark-sheets is taken into consideration, the applicant was below 18 years of age on the date of incident. Despite this, the learned Courts below erroneously held that the date of birth recorded between Class I to IV is reliable, which finding is directly contrary to Section 94 of the Act of 2015.
It was further submitted that the impugned findings are unsustainable in law inasmuch as the learned Courts below themselves noticed that the mark-sheets of Class V, Class VIII and Class X, exhibited as Ex.P/13, Ex.P/14 and Ex.P/15, record the applicant's date of birth as 02.07.2006 and the said documents were duly proved by Ramdutt Sharma (PW-1), Headmaster of Jai Gurudev School, Bindwa, who categorically deposed that NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:1943 4 MCRC-33270-2025 the applicant was admitted to the said school on 22.06.2011 and the date of birth recorded in the admission register was correct. Pandit Subedar Purohit (PW-3) was also examined and he specifically supported the applicant's correct date of birth.
It was further submitted that despite the availability of unimpeachable documentary and oral evidence strictly falling under Section 94(2)(i) of the Act of 2015, the learned Courts below had drawn an adverse inference merely on the ground that at the time when the applicant's date of birth was initially recorded in school records, there was no document other than a horoscope. Such a finding is wholly contrary to the scheme of Section 94 of the Act of 2015, as once the matriculation and other Board mark-sheets conclusively record the applicant's date of birth as 02.07.2006, there was absolutely no justification for discarding the same and holding the date of birth to be 08.06.2005. The findings so recorded are based on presumption and conjecture and are contrary to the evidence collected during the course of inquiry.
It was further submitted that the impugned orders Annexure P/1 and P/2, dated 04.07.2025 and 19.03.2025 are liable to be set aside, as they violated the basic principles embodied under Section 94 of the Act of 2015 and the said provision casts a statutory duty upon the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class to draw the presumption in favour of the date of birth recorded in the Board mark-sheets while conducting an age inquiry. In the present case, the Board mark-sheets as well as the admission register, duly verified and certified by PW-1, clearly record the applicant's date of birth as NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:1943 5 MCRC-33270-2025 02.07.2006.
It was further submitted that the impugned orders further run contrary to the order and directions issued by this Court in Criminal Revision No. 3522/2024 passed in the matter of Child in conflict with law vs. Vinod Kumar Jain & Another, decided on 20.11.2024, wherein it was specifically directed that the age inquiry shall be strictly confined to the provisions of Section 94 of the Act of 2015 and the learned Courts below failed to adhere to the said binding directions, rendering the impugned orders illegal and contrary to law.
It has been consistently pleaded and proved by the petitioner that the applicant was never admitted to the Government Primary/Middle School, Bindwa and even the prosecution witness Praveen Singh Chauhan (PW-4), in his cross-examination, admitted that no document was obtained which directly established that the applicant's family had ever admitted him to the said Government school and there is no admission form, no transfer certificate, and no supporting document to justify the alleged entry. In spite of this, the learned Courts below recorded findings regarding the applicant's admission in the Government school, which are based on no evidence and are therefore illegal.
It was further submitted that the findings recorded by the learned Courts below in disbelieving the records of Jai Gurudev School, Bindwa, where the applicant was in real admitted and where his date of birth was duly proved as 02.07.2006, are wholly unsustainable. The further finding regarding admission in the Government school is also erroneous, as the NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:1943 6 MCRC-33270-2025 petitioner was never admitted there and no transfer certificate was ever issued. Without a transfer certificate, admission to another institution is impermissible, and yet the learned Courts below have ignored this settled position of law.
It was further submitted that the prosecution has also failed to prove the voter elector form relied upon by it, as no witness has been examined to prove who issued the said form or on what basis it was issued and the form does not bear the signature and has not been proved in accordance with law. The learned Trial Court further failed to consider that Aadhaar cards were not in existence at the time when the applicant was admitted to Class-I and the prosecution had falsely alleged manipulation in the Aadhaar record without any proof. Prosecution document Exhibit D/7 itself contains cutting and overwriting of the applicant's name, and the prosecution had taken inconsistent stands regarding the applicant's age.
It was further submitted that it is a settled principle of law that where two views regarding age are possible, the view favourable to the child must be adopted and in that regard, the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shahnawaz vs. State of U.P. , reported in AIR 2011 SC 3107 , and Vijay Singh vs. State of Delhi , reported i n (2012) 8 SCC 763 , which clearly holds that matriculation or equivalent certificates have overriding evidentiary value in determining juvenility.
It was further submitted that the father of the applicant, by invoking the provisions of the Right to Information Act, had obtained certified and official records pertaining to the applicant/child in conflict's education from NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:1943 7 MCRC-33270-2025 Classes VI to VIII from Government Secondary School, Cottonjeen No.1, Bhind, which were duly supplied by the competent school authorities. A prima facie reading of these Government-certified documents conclusively established that the date of birth of the child-in-conflict/the applicant with law was 02.07.2006 and the said records further demonstratd that the applicant was a regular student of the aforesaid institution. The admission register and the certification issued by the Government school clearly and unequivocally show that on the date of the incident alleged by the prosecution, child-in-conflict/the applicant was a minor, leaving no scope for doubt. Copies of the admission form, admission register, school certification, and the transfer certificate issued by Government Boys Primary School, Feeganj, Bhind, have been filed as Annexure A/6 along with I.A.21362 of 2025 (an application for taking documents on record), which further corroborate the applicant's consistent case regarding his date of birth and juvenility.
It was further submitted that upon issuance of the transfer certificate by Government Secondary School, Cottonjeen No.1, Bhind, the applicant/child in conflict with law was thereafter admitted to Mahakaleshwar Convent School, where he pursued his studies from Class IX onwards and all documents relating to such admission, including the school certification, admission form, admission register, and the relevant transfer certificate, were again obtained by the applicant's father (present petitioner) under the Right to Information Act, thereby lending additional authenticity and credibility to the said records. It was thus submitted that a cumulative NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:1943 8 MCRC-33270-2025 and harmonious reading of the RTI-obtained government school records, admission registers, transfer certificates, and subsequent school documents leaves no manner of doubt that on the date of the alleged incident, the applicant was undeniably below 18 years of age.
In view of the aforesaid submissions, it is prayed that the impugned orders here be set aside and the applicant be declared a juvenile/child in conflict with law on the date of the incident.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor for the State as well as the counsel for the complainant while opposing the petition, submitted that the learned Trial Court, after remand, conducted a detailed and lawful age inquiry by granting adequate opportunity to both sides to adduce evidence and upon a careful appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, the Trial Court rightly recorded a finding that the applicant was above 18 years of age on the date of the incident. It was further contended that the Trial Court was justified in placing reliance upon the earlier school records pertaining to Classes I to IV, which were found to be contemporaneous and trustworthy, particularly in view of the inconsistencies noticed in the subsequent records relied upon by the petitioner.
It was further that submitted that the schooling history of the applicant, when examined chronologically, clearly demonstrates that the initial institution allegedly attended by him was a non-recognized school, whereas his subsequent education was undertaken in duly recognized Government institutions. As per the material placed on record, the applicant is stated to have been initially admitted in Jai Gurudev Primary School, Bindwa, during NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:1943 9 MCRC-33270-2025 the period prior to the academic year 2010-11. However, the applicant has failed to produce any document to establish that the said institution was recognized or affiliated to the State Education Department or any statutory Board at the relevant point of time. No notification, recognition order, or affiliation certificate has been brought on record to show that the said institution was legally authorized to maintain statutory admission registers or to certify the date of birth of students. Consequently, the records emanating from the said institution, including the alleged admission form and entries relating to date of birth, are private in nature and lack statutory sanctity.
The true facts are that on 15.04.2010, the applicant was admittedly admitted to the Government Primary/Middle School, Bindwa, a duly recognized Government institution. The original admission register of the said school (Exhibit D-3) and the annual result records for Class I (2010-11), Class II (2011-12), Class III (2012-13), and Class IV (2013-14) (Exhibits D-4 to D-7), which were proved through the Principal of the school (N.A.W.-1), consistently record the applicant's date of birth as 08.06.2005. These records were prepared contemporaneously in the regular discharge of official duty and long prior to the occurrence of the alleged offence, thereby carrying a strong presumption of correctness under Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act.
It was further submitted that the applicant has not produced any valid transfer certificate from the alleged initial non-recognized school to justify his admission into the Government Primary/Middle School, Bindwa. In the absence of such a transfer certificate, the claim of prior schooling in the said NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:1943 10 MCRC-33270-2025 non-recognized institution itself becomes doubtful. The continuity and consistency of the Government school records from Class I to Class IV stand in sharp contrast to the dubious and unsupported records of the alleged initial school. It was thus contended that the date-wise and institution-wise analysis of the applicant's schooling clearly establishes that the earliest legally recognized and reliable records are those of the Government Primary/Middle School, Bindwa, which uniformly record the applicant's date of birth as 08.06.2005. The subsequent attempt by the applicant to rely upon records of an unrecognized institution, or later-procured documents inconsistent with the Government records, is nothing but an afterthought aimed at falsely claiming juvenility. Acceptance of such a claim would amount to permitting misuse of the beneficial provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.
It was further submitted that the revisional court, in Criminal Revision No. 44/2025, independently examined the entire material on record and found no perversity, illegality, or material irregularity in the findings recorded by the Trial Court, and therefore rightly affirmed the order dated 19.03.2025 by its order dated 04.07.2025. The learned State counsel emphasized that concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Courts below ought not to be interfered with in exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
Learned counsel for the complainant also placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sanjeev Kumar Gupta v. State of U.P. and Another, reported in AIR 2019 SC 4364, to contend that where NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:1943 11 MCRC-33270-2025 school records disclose inconsistencies and the Court, upon proper inquiry, finds the plea of juvenility to be doubtful, such plea can be rejected on the basis of reliable and contemporaneous evidence. It was argued that the said judgment squarely applies to the facts of the present case and supports the conclusion arrived at by the learned Courts below.
On the basis of the aforesaid grounds, it was submitted that the impugned orders are legal, reasoned, and based on proper appreciation of evidence, and therefore the present petition deserves to be dismissed.
Upon a careful consideration of the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, perusal of the impugned orders, and examination of the material on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the age determination inquiry conducted by the learned Trial Court, as affirmed by the Revisional Court, suffers from a manifest error of law and a misapplication of the mandatory provisions of Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, for the following reasons:
A chronological reading of the educational records reveals that the date of birth recorded as 08.06.2005 appears in the admission register of Government Primary/Middle School, Bindwa, where the applicant is shown to have been admitted on 15.04.2010 and to have studied from Class I to Class IV during the academic sessions 2010-11 to 2013-14. The said date of birth was consistently reflected in the annual result records of the said Government school for the aforesaid classes. However, significantly, no admission form, or foundational document has been produced to establish NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:1943
12 MCRC-33270-2025 the lawful admission of the applicant into the said Government school or to demonstrate continuity from any prior institution. The mere existence of entries in a Government school register, in the absence of continuity and foundational legitimacy, cannot by itself be treated as conclusive for the purpose of age determination.
On the other hand, the transfer certificate issued by Jai Gurudev Primary/Middle School, Bindwa, records the applicant's date of birth as 02.07.2006. Though it has been contended that the said institution was unrecognized at the time of the applicant's admission, it is undisputed that recognition was granted shortly thereafter. More importantly, the date of birth recorded therein continued uniformly and without deviation in all subsequent educational records. The applicant thereafter studied at Government Boys Primary School, Freeganj, Bhind, where he passed Class III in the academic session 2013-14, Class IV in 2014-15, and Class V in 2015-16. The records of the said Government school, now merged with Government Middle School, Cottonjean No. 1, Bhind, and certified on 07.11.2024, consistently record the applicant's date of birth as 02.07.2006. This date of birth further finds unimpeachable corroboration in the Board-
recognized Class X and Class XII mark-sheets, which also uniformly reflect the date of birth as 02.07.2006.
From a cumulative and harmonious appreciation of the entire material on record, this Court finds that the date of birth 02.07.2006 alone satisfies the test of continuity, consistency, and statutory primacy as contemplated under Section 94 of the Act of 2015. The reliance placed by the Courts below upon NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:1943 13 MCRC-33270-2025 the entries of Government Primary/Middle School, Bindwa, merely on account of the institution being a Government school, while ignoring the absence of continuity and the existence of later Board-recognized records, amounts to a clear misapplication of the statutory scheme.
Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, prescribes a mandatory hierarchy of evidence for age determination, granting primacy to school records and matriculation or equivalent certificates issued by the competent examination Board. Once such documents are available and duly proved, the Court is not permitted to disregard them on the basis of presumptions, conjectures, or collateral considerations. In the present case, the petitioner produced unimpeachable Board-recognized documents, including mark-sheets, admission registers, and school certifications, all consistently recording the applicant's date of birth as 02.07.2006. These documents emanate from recognized institutions, including Government schools, and were proved through competent witnesses. The Courts below, despite noticing the existence and evidentiary value of these documents, erroneously preferred earlier entries without recording legally sustainable reasons for discarding the Board-recognized certificates, thereby acting in derogation of the mandate of Section 94.
The approach adopted by the Courts below also runs contrary to the settled position of law that once statutory documents contemplated under Section 94 are available, the inquiry must necessarily culminate there, and the Court cannot embark upon a roving or fishing inquiry. The rejection of unimpeachable statutory evidence on the basis of conjectures or NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:1943 14 MCRC-33270-2025 apprehensions regarding misuse of the Act is impermissible in law. It is equally well settled that where two views regarding age are possible, the view favourable to the child must be adopted, keeping in view the reformative and beneficial object of the Juvenile Justice legislation.
This Court further finds no material on record to suggest any deliberate manipulation or suppression on the part of the applicant. On the contrary, the existence of consistent and continuous Board-recognized records, coupled with the beneficial object of the Act, clearly tilts the balance in favour of the applicant. Any residual doubt, if at all, must necessarily be resolved in favour of juvenility.
In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is satisfied that the impugned orders have resulted in a miscarriage of justice and warrant interference in exercise of the inherent powers under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to secure the ends of justice.
Accordingly, the order dated 19.03.2025 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhind, in Criminal Case No. 638 of 2024, and the order dated 04.07.2025 passed by the learned Third Additional Sessions Judge, Bhind, in Criminal Revision No. 44 of 2025, are hereby set aside. It is declared that the applicant was a child in conflict with law on the date of the incident. The matter shall henceforth be dealt with strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, and all consequential proceedings shall stand regulated accordingly.
The statutory hierarchy of evidence prescribed under Section 94 is NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:1943 15 MCRC-33270-2025 mandatory and non-negotiable. Once Board-recognized records are produced and duly proved, the inquiry must necessarily conclude there, and any doubt must invariably be resolved in favour of the juvenile, consistent with the child-centric and reformative spirit of the Juvenile Justice legislation.
With the aforesaid observations, the petition is disposed of finally.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE) JUDGE Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH AT GWALIOR, pwn* 2.5.4.20=b864d1ab4ace2215bfcf3ab301c34d631287f1b1cdd90b4a49f265 f02d9d593f, ou=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH AT GWALIOR,CID - 7064434, postalCode=474001, st=Madhya Pradesh, serialNumber=61b9d129971d2ea4fd4455ed49ea436ea65e26164beeed8 9153191c56e98ce21, cn=PAWAN KUMAR Date: 2026.01.28 11:39:23 +05'30'