The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, has allowed a criminal revision filed by a minor, setting aside orders of the Children Court and Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) that mandated an ossification test despite the availability of school records. The court held that such medical tests can only be ordered in the absence of specific statutory documents.
Background
The case involves Pradeep Kori alias Pradeep Harijan, a minor represented by his father. An FIR was lodged against him on March 11, 2025, at Police Station Leelapur, District Pratapgarh, under Sections 65 and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Section 3/4(2) of the POCSO Act, 2012. It was alleged that the applicant forcibly outraged the modesty of the informant’s daughter, aged about 15, and threatened her family.
The dispute arose during age determination proceedings before the Juvenile Justice Board, Pratapgarh. Two documents were on record: a High School marksheet showing a birth date of January 1, 2010 (making him 15 years, 2 months, and 10 days old at the time of the incident), and a Class V scholar register produced by the informant showing a birth date of May 13, 2009 (making him 15 years, 8 months, and 29 days old). Despite these records, the JJB ordered an ossification test, a decision later affirmed by the Children Court/Special Judge, POCSO Act, Pratapgarh.
Arguments of the Parties
Counsel for the revisionist argued that the JJB’s order was in clear contravention of Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. They contended that since school certificates were available, the law mandates their use for age determination, and medical opinions should only be sought if such documents are missing.
The learned A.G.A. for the State opposed the revision, stating the Board ordered the test for “proper determination of age” due to contradictory dates in the two documents. However, the A.G.A. was unable to dispute the specific legal mandate regarding the order of preference established under Section 94 of the Act.
Court’s Analysis
Justice Manish Kumar examined the hierarchy of evidence prescribed under Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015. The Court noted that the statute provides a clear order of preference:
- Date of birth certificate from the school or matriculation/equivalent certificate.
- Birth certificate given by a corporation, municipal authority, or Panchayat.
- Ossification or medical test.
The Court emphasized the restrictive nature of the third category, observing:
“It is to be noticed that clause (iii) of Section 94 begins with the word ‘Only’ i.e to say the other age determination test could be resorted to only in absence of any document mentioned in clause (i) and (ii) and not otherwise.”
The Court further noted that even with the discrepancy between the two school records (January 2010 vs. May 2009), both documents placed the applicant below 16 years of age at the time of the alleged incident. Therefore, there was “no occasion” for the JJB to direct a medical test.
Decision
The High Court allowed the criminal revision and set aside the orders dated October 17, 2025 (Children Court) and May 23, 2025 (JJB). The Court ordered the minor to be enlarged on bail upon the execution of a personal bond by his natural guardian and two reliable sureties.
The bail was granted subject to several conditions, including an undertaking that the guardian would prevent the juvenile from indulging in unlawful activities and ensure his presence before the trial court. Additionally, the revisionist is required to appear before the District Probation Officer on the 10th of every month for one year.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Pradeep Kori @ Pradeep Harijan (Minor) Thru. Father vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. And Another
- Case: CRIMINAL REVISION No. 1470 of 2025
- Bench: Justice Manish Kumar
- Date: March 25, 2026
