Uttarakhand High Court
“X” Cil vs State Of Uttarakhand & Anr on 18 February, 2026
2026:UHC:1054
Judgment reserved on:17.12.2025
Judgment delivered on:18.02.2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
Criminal Revision No.516 of 2024
"X" CIL ......Revisionist
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand & Anr .....Respondent
Presence:
Mr. Jitendra Chaudhary, learned counsel for the Revisionist.
Mr. Vijay Khanduri, learned Brief Holder, for the State of Uttarakhand.
Hon'ble Ashish Naithani, J.
1. The present criminal revision has been preferred under Section 102 of
the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015,
assailing the judgment and order dated 30.03.2024 passed by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge/FTC (POCSO), Haridwar, in Misc.
Criminal Case No. 10 of 2024 (State v. Hukum Singh), whereby the
application of the Revisionist seeking declaration of juvenility was
rejected and the Revisionist was held to be a major.
2. The Revisionist is an accused in FIR No. 0714 of 2023, registered at
Police Station Laksar, District Haridwar, under Sections 363, 366,
376(2) IPC and Sections 5/6 of the POCSO Act. The Revisionist is in
judicial custody since 24.10.2023.
3. The case of the Revisionist is that his date of birth is 12.01.2007, and
therefore, on the date of the alleged incident, he was below eighteen
years of age and was a child in conflict with law within the meaning of
1
Criminal Revision No. 516 of 2024, "X" CIL Vs State of Uttarakhand and anr-
Ashish Naithani J.
2026:UHC:1054
the Juvenile Justice Act. In support of the said claim, reliance is placed
upon the school transfer certificate, school records, family register and
Aadhaar card, all of which record the same date of birth.
4. It is the admitted position that, before the court below, the aforesaid
educational and public documents were not produced. Instead, an
application was moved by the then counsel for the Revisionist seeking
medical examination for determination of age.
5. Pursuant thereto, a medical board was constituted, which opined that
the age of the Revisionist was between 18 to 20 years. Relying
primarily upon the said medical opinion, the court below, by the
impugned order dated 30.03.2024, rejected the claim of juvenility and
declared the Revisionist to be a major.
6. Aggrieved by the said order, the present revision has been filed. During
the pendency of the revision, the Revisionist moved an application for
bringing additional documents on record, namely the school records,
family register and Aadhaar card, which has been allowed, and the said
documents have been taken on record.
7. Learned counsel for the Revisionist submits that the impugned order is
wholly unsustainable in law inasmuch as it proceeds in complete
disregard of the mandatory statutory scheme contained in Section 94 of
the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.
8. It is argued that under the said provision, primacy is required to be
given to the date of birth certificate from the school or the matriculation
or equivalent certificate, and only in the absence of such documentary
evidence, recourse can be had to medical opinion.
9. It is submitted that the school transfer certificate, school records, family
register and Aadhaar card, which are now on record, uniformly record
the date of birth of the Revisionist as 12.01.2007, and therefore, on the
2
Criminal Revision No. 516 of 2024, "X" CIL Vs State of Uttarakhand and anr-
Ashish Naithani J.
2026:UHC:1054
date of the alleged incident, the Revisionist was admittedly below
eighteen years of age.
10. It is further contended that the medical opinion is, at best, an
estimate with a margin of error and cannot override authentic
documentary evidence relating to date of birth.
11. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the failure to
place the said documents before the court below occurred due to lapses
on the part of the earlier counsel, and the Revisionist, who was in
custody, cannot be made to suffer for the same.
12. It is also argued that the court below has adopted a legally
impermissible approach by treating the medical opinion as
determinative, even though the statute clearly treats it as a method of
last resort.
13. On these premises, it is urged that the impugned order deserves to
be set aside and the Revisionist be declared a juvenile in conflict with
law, or in the alternative, the matter be remanded for fresh
consideration in accordance with law.
14. Per contra, learned State counsel supports the impugned order
and submits that the court below has decided the matter on the basis of
the material which was available before it at the relevant time.
15. It is argued that since no documentary evidence relating to date of
birth was produced before the court below, it had no option but to rely
upon the medical board report, which indicated the age of the
Revisionist to be between 18 to 20 years.
16. It is further submitted that the order passed by the court below
does not suffer from any illegality or perversity warranting interference
in revisional jurisdiction.
17. Heard learned counsel for the Parties and perused the records.
3
Criminal Revision No. 516 of 2024, "X" CIL Vs State of Uttarakhand and anr-
Ashish Naithani J.
2026:UHC:1054
18. The short but important question which arises for consideration
in the present revision is whether the court below was justified in
rejecting the claim of juvenility of the Revisionist solely on the basis of
the medical board opinion, without there being any consideration of
documentary evidence relating to the date of birth, and whether such an
approach is in consonance with the statutory scheme of the Juvenile
Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.
19. The law relating to determination of age of a person claiming
juvenility is no longer res integra. Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice
(Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 lays down a clear and
mandatory hierarchy of evidence for age determination. The statute
accords primacy to the date of birth certificate from the school or the
matriculation or equivalent certificate, and in the absence thereof, to the
birth certificate issued by a municipal authority or a panchayat. It is
only in the absence of both these categories of documentary evidence
that recourse can be had to medical opinion.
20. The legislative intent behind such a scheme is manifest. Medical
age determination is, by its very nature, an approximation and carries
an inherent margin of error. It is for this reason that the statute treats
medical opinion as a method of last resort and not as the primary or
determinative mode of proof.
21. In the present case, it is not in dispute that before the court below,
no school or public documents relating to the date of birth of the
Revisionist were produced, and an application was moved for medical
examination. On the basis of the medical board report opining the age
of the Revisionist to be between 18 to 20 years, the court below
rejected the claim of juvenility and declared the Revisionist to be a
major.
4
Criminal Revision No. 516 of 2024, "X" CIL Vs State of Uttarakhand and anr-
Ashish Naithani J.
2026:UHC:1054
22. However, during the pendency of the present revision, the
Revisionist moved an application for taking additional documents on
record, namely, the school transfer certificate, school records, family
register and Aadhaar card, which has been allowed, and the said
documents now form part of the record of this Court.
23. A perusal of these documents shows that they uniformly record
the date of birth of the Revisionist as 12.01.2007. At least at this stage,
there is nothing on record to prima facie indicate that these documents
are forged, fabricated or inherently unreliable.
24. Once such documentary evidence relating to date of birth is
available on record, the statutory mandate of Section 94 of the Act
requires that the same be considered in precedence to, and in preference
over, any medical opinion. The approach adopted by the court below, in
treating the medical opinion as determinative, without the benefit of
examining the documentary evidence, therefore, cannot be said to be in
accordance with law.
25. It is also evident that the failure to produce the said documents
before the court below occurred on account of lapses on the part of the
earlier counsel. A child in conflict with law, who is in custody, cannot
be made to suffer irreversibly for such lapses, particularly when the
statute itself is a beneficial and protective legislation, intended to secure
the rights of children.
26. This Court is conscious of the fact that the court below did not
have the advantage of considering the documentary evidence which is
now available on record. In such circumstances, the proper course
would be to set aside the impugned order and remit the matter to the
court below for a fresh and lawful determination of the claim of
juvenility, strictly in accordance with the procedure and hierarchy of
5
Criminal Revision No. 516 of 2024, "X" CIL Vs State of Uttarakhand and anr-
Ashish Naithani J.
2026:UHC:1054
evidence prescribed under Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and
Protection of Children) Act, 2015.
27. This Court, therefore, has no hesitation in holding that the
impugned judgment and order dated 30.03.2024 suffers from a material
irregularity and cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.
28. It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the
genuineness or evidentiary value of the documents produced by the
Revisionist, and the same shall be examined by the court below in
accordance with law.
ORDER
The criminal revision is allowed.
The judgment and order dated 30.03.2024 passed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge/FTC (POCSO), Haridwar, in Misc. Criminal
Case No. 10 of 2024, is hereby set aside.
The matter is remanded to the court below to decide the
application of the Revisionist for declaration of juvenility afresh, in
accordance with law, after considering the documentary evidence
relating to the date of birth, strictly in the light of Section 94 of the
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.
The court below shall endeavour to decide the said issue
expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of
production of a certified copy of this order.
(Ashish Naithani J.)
Dated:18.02.2026
NR/
6
Criminal Revision No. 516 of 2024, “X” CIL Vs State of Uttarakhand and anr-
Ashish Naithani J.
