JUVENILE XversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

                                                                     AFR
         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
              CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 5278 of 2025

Juvenile X
                                                        .....Revisionist(s)
                                 Versus
State of U.P. and Another
                                                             .....Opposite
                                                                   Party(s)

Counsel for Revisionist(s)    : Gaurav Tiwari, Sanjay Chaturvedi
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Gaurav Singh Tomar, Inder Pal
                                Singh Tomar

Court No. - 84

                 HON'BLE JAI PRAKASH TIWARI, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned counsel for the
opposite party no. 2, as well as Sri Ashutosh Srivastava, learned A.G.A.
for the State and perused the entire material available on record.

2. This criminal revision has been filed under Section 102 of the Juvenile
Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 for setting aside the
judgment and order dated 16.07.2024 passed by learned Additional
District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO), Court No. 2,
Ghaziabad in Criminal Case No. 65 of 2018 (State vs. Anash), and order
dated 20.03.2018 passed by the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Ghaziabad
in Case No. 76 of 2017 (State vs. Anash), arising out of Case Crime No.
134 of 2017, under Sections 452, 302, 506 IPC, Police Station
Shahibabad, District Ghaziabad.

3. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the present criminal
revision arises out of an FIR dated 26.01.2017 lodged by opposite party
no. 2 against the revisionist and others, registered as Case Crime No. 134
of 2017 under Sections 452, 302, and 506 I.P.C. at Police Station
Sahibabad, District Ghaziabad. As per the prosecution case, on
21.01.2017 at about 9:00 P.M., the accused persons allegedly abused
certain women and assaulted the complainant’s father when he objected.
Thereafter, in the intervening night of 25/26.01.2017 at about 1:30 A.M.,
                                                          CRLR No. 5278 of 2025
                                2


the said person was allegedly attacked with a knife while sleeping,
resulting in his death.

4. It is submitted that the revisionist was declared a juvenile by the
Juvenile Justice Board, Ghaziabad, vide order dated 26.09.2017 on the
basis of the medical report of the Chief Medical Officer dated 03.06.2017,
which assessed his age to be about 16 years on that date. Accordingly, on
the date of the incident, the revisionist was approximately 15 years and 6
months old and, therefore, below 16 years of age. Learned counsel
contends that the District Probation Officer’s report dated 21.11.2017
does not disclose any adverse material or criminal antecedents against the
revisionist, except a vague apprehension regarding bad company.

5. Despite this, the Juvenile Justice Board, by order dated 20.03.2018,
referred the matter to the Children’s Court for trial of the revisionist as an
adult. It is argued that such referral is contrary to Section 15 of the
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, which
applies only to children aged 16 years or above on the date of commission
of the offence. Since the revisionist was below 16 years, the preliminary
assessment and mental status examination were without jurisdiction and
contrary to law. It is further submitted that the learned trial court wrongly
rejected the application dated 17.01.2023 and arbitrarily closed the
opportunity to cross-examine Dr. Saket Nath Tiwari, thereby causing
prejudice to the revisionist.

6. Learned counsel further submits that the mental status examination
report is neither conclusive nor sufficient to justify trial of the revisionist
as an adult. Since Section 15 itself was inapplicable, the consequential
provisions of Section 18 of the Act also could not have been invoked. The
impugned orders are stated to be based on conjectures, unsupported by
evidence, and contrary to the scheme and provisions of the Juvenile
Justice Act. It is lastly submitted that the revisionist has already
undergone the maximum period of three years contemplated under the
Act, and therefore continuation of the proceedings is wholly unjustified.
Accordingly, the impugned orders passed by the Juvenile Justice Board
and the learned trial court are liable to be set aside.

7. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the revisionist has
placed reliance upon the judgment of High Court of Delhi at New Delhi
                                                        CRLR No. 5278 of 2025
                                3


in the case of Raju vs. State (GNCT of Delhi) reported in 2025 SCC
OnLine Del 6361.

8. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and learned A.G.A. has
vehemently opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the
revisionist and has submitted that the judgment and order of the courts
concerned are in accordance with law.

9. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

The core of this revision rests on the age of the accused. A report from the
Chief Medical Officer dated 03.06.2017, determined the revisionist was
about 16 years old at that time. Consequently, the Juvenile Justice Board,
Ghaziabad determined the age of child in conflict with law about 16
years declared him a juvenile on 26.09.2017. Crucially, the learned
counsel for the revisionist argues that on the actual date of the incident
26.01.2017, the revisionist was approximately 15 years and 6 months old.

10. The learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the revisionist has
been wrongly assessed under Section 15 of the JJ Act. This provision
applies only when a child in conflict with law has completed the 16 years
of age or above.

11. Here, it would be relevant to go through the opening line of Section
15, which clearly states:


"In case of a heinous offence alleged to have been committed by a
child, who has completed or is above the age of sixteen year". This
makes it clear that the child must have completed 16 years of age."


In the present case, the age of the revisionist has been recorded as "about
16 years." As per Black's Law Dictionary-
"The word "about" is generally construed to mean "approximately",
"nearly", or "close to" a specific amount, time, or quantity"


The word "about" is generally understood to mean something that is not
exact but approximate. Therefore, it indicates that the revisionist has not
yet completed 16 years of age.

12. The Court, while adjudicating the present judgment, has dealt with the
                                                        CRLR No. 5278 of 2025
                               4


following two issues:

Firstly, the issue that arises for consideration is whether the terms
“completed” and “about” are synonymous with each other.

The words “completion” and “about” are not synonymous in legal
interpretation, as each conveys a distinct meaning and legal effect. The
term “completion” denotes the finalization, fulfillment, or full execution
of an act or obligation. In contrast, the word “about” is ordinarily used to
indicate approximation, relation, or reference to a subject matter, without
implying finality or conclusiveness. Under principles of statutory and
contractual interpretation, courts generally assign words their ordinary
and contextual meanings unless expressly defined otherwise. Therefore,
treating “completion” and “about” as synonymous would be legally
unsustainable, as such interpretation may alter the objective of the act and
create ambiguity in the construction of the statute.

The JJ Board failed to properly consider the use of the word "about 16
years" and incorrectly treated the revisionist as having completed 16
years, thereby wrongly declaring him as an adult. On the bare perusal of
Section 15 of the JJ Act, the revisionist was not eligible for assessment
under this provision. Section 15 of the JJ Act, 2015 reads as under:-

Section 15. Preliminary assessment into heinous offences by Board.


(1) In case of a heinous offence alleged to have been committed by a
child, who has completed or is above the age of sixteen years, the Board
shall conduct a preliminary assessment with regard to his mental and
physical capacity to commit such offence, ability to understand the
consequences of the offence and the circumstances in which he allegedly
committed the offence and may pass an order in accordance with the
provisions of sub-section (3) of section 18:


Provided that for such an assessment, the Board may take the assistance
of experiences psychologists or psycho-social workers or other experts.


Explanation. For the purposes of this section, it is clarified that
preliminary assessment not a trial but is to assess the capacity of such
child to commit and understand the consequence of the alleged offence.
                                                       CRLR No. 5278 of 2025
                               5


(2) Where the Board is satisfied on preliminary assessment that the
matter should be disposed of by the Board, then the Board shall follow the
procedure, as far as may be, for trial in summons case under the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974):


Provided that the order of the Board to dispose of the matter shall be
appealable under sub-section (2) of section 101:


Provided further that the assessment under this section shall be completed
within the period specified in section 14.

Secondly, the issue that arises for consideration is whether a child in
conflict with law, who has neither attained nor completed the age of
16 years, can be subjected to an assessment under Section 15 of the
Juvenile Justice Act, 2015.

There is no settled legal principle that specifically deals with the
interpretation of the term "about," which is commonly used by courts in
determining age. When the exact age of the child is not known and there
is no documentary evidence available, a medical examination is
conducted to determine the age as per mandate of section 94(2)(iii) of the
JJ Act,2015. However, such medical opinion does not provide an exact
age and is only an estimate on the basis of any ossification test or any
other latest medical age determination test.

13. Therefore, while considering the medical report given by the CMO,
the JJ Board should interpret it in a manner that benefits the child and
serves the interests of justice. The Board should not simply adopt the age
mentioned in the report without proper consideration and application of
mind.

14. Further, the JJ Board ought to have given the benefit of a margin of
error in age determination, as recognized by judicial precedents.

Reference may be made to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of Vinod Katara Vs. State of M.P., reported in 2022 SCC Online SC
1204, wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court held:

"60. The bone ossification test is not an exact science that can provide us
with the exact age of the person. As discussed above, the individual
                                                        CRLR No. 5278 of 2025
                               6


characteristics such as the growth rate of bones and skeletal structures
can affect the accuracy of this method. This Court has observed in Ram
Suresh Singh v. Prabhat Singh, (2009) 6 SCC 681: (2010) 2 SCC (Cri)
1194, and Jyoti Prakash Rai v. State of Bihar. (2008) 15 SCC 223: (2009)
3 SCC (Cri) 796, that the ossification test is not conclusive for age
determination because it does not reveal the exact age of the person, but
the radiological examination leaves a margin of two years on either side
of the age range as prescribed by the test irrespective of whether the
ossification text of multiple joints is conducted. The courts in India have
accepted the fact that after the age of thirty years the ossification test
cannot be relied upon for age determination. It is trite that the standard of
proof for the determination of age is the degree of probability and not
proof beyond reasonable doubt".

15. In view of the above, the revisionist should have been given the
benefit of this margin, and the assessment under Section 15 of the JJ Act
was not justified.

16. Although, the order regarding the determination of age has not been
challenged in this revision. Only the preliminary assessment order has
been challenged. The Board conducted a preliminary assessment under
Section 15 of the Act on the basis that the child in conflict with law was
approximately 16 years of age,whereas under Section 15 of the J.J. Act, a
preliminary assessment requires the child's age to be 16 years or more as
of the date of incident.

17. From the above discussion and in the considered opinion of this
Court, "about" could not be construed as "completion" provided under
Section 15 of the J.J. Act, 2015.

18. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the impugned order dated
20.03.2018 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Ghaziabad and the order
dated 16.07.2024 passed by the learned trial court cannot be sustained in
the eyes of law.

19. Accordingly,the criminal revision is allowed.

20. The impugned judgment and order dated 16.07.2024 passed by the
learned Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO),
Court No. 2, Ghaziabad and the order dated 20.03.2018 passed by the
                                                                                               CRLR No. 5278 of 2025
                                                                     7


                                    Juvenile Justice Board, Ghaziabad are hereby set aside.

                                    21. It is directed that the case of the revisionist shall be dealt with strictly
                                    in accordance with the provisions applicable to a juvenile under the
                                    Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.

                                    22. The matter is remanded back to the Juvenile Justice Board, Ghaziabad
                                    to proceed afresh in accordance with law.

                                    23. Before parting with the judgment, I would like to express my
                                    appreciation to my Research Associate, Ms. Divya Pandey for her
                                    thorough research and assistance to the Court in the instant case.



                                                                                          (Jai Prakash Tiwari,J.)
                                    April 1, 2026
                                    Brijesh




Digitally signed by :-
BRIJESH KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad