In an appeal filed before the Supreme Court to challenge an order dated 08-10-2025 by the Allahabad High Court, whereby a revision petition filed by the complainant (respondent 2) against the order of the Trial Court declaring the appellant a minor on the date of the alleged occurrence was allowed, a Bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymala Bagchi partly allowed the appeal by setting aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the High Court for being decided afresh.
The parties in the present matter were involved in multiple criminal cases against each other, including a matter in which the complainant and her husband underwent trial for the murder of the appellant’s parents. Thereafter, the complainant and her husband were held guilty on 09-07-2025 for the said murder and were sentenced to life imprisonment.
Before this occurrence, a First Information Report (FIR) was registered on 10-09-2017 under Sections 147, 148, 323, 394, 506, 354B, and 352 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 on a complaint made by the complainant. Five people, including the appellant, who was the complainant’s nephew, were named in the FIR and accused of harassing the complainant as well as beating her husband.
Thereafter, the appellant moved an application before the Special Judge, POCSO Act (Protection of Children from Sexual Offences) to declare him a juvenile and to conduct the trial accordingly. The appellant underwent a medical examination on 03-10-2022, and upon consideration of the report, the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB), Varanasi, declared the appellant a juvenile delinquent on the date of the alleged incident.
The complainant preferred a statutory appeal against this, which was dismissed on 02-11-2023. Aggrieved, the complainant approached the High Court, where her revision petition was allowed, and it was observed that the lower courts failed to follow the mandatory hierarchy prescribed in Section 94(2) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 as per school certificates must be given preference while giving second preference to birth certificates and only in the absence of the said documents, an ossification test is to be ordered.
The High Court held that the JJB had erred in directing the ossification test since both documents of the appellant were available. Aggrieved, the appellant filed the present matter before the Court.
The Court stated that once the ossification test was conducted and the report was brought on record as evidence, it cannot be said that the Trial Court erred in relying on the report. However, the court said that the evidentiary value of that report ought to be weighed by the Trial Court or the High Court. Since such an exercise was not performed, the Court found that the matter required reconsideration by the High Court.
Thus, the Court partly allowed the appeal by setting aside the impugned order and remanding the matter to the High Court to decide the same afresh. It was said that the High Court may consider the observations of the Court, but must decide the matter without being influenced by observations made in previous orders or those of this Court.
The parties were directed to appear before the High Court on 08-12-2025.
Appearances:
For Petitioner(s) – Mr. Sidharth Luthra, Mr. Akash Dhar Dubey, Mr. Ayush Anand, Mr. Mihir Joshi, Mr. Monu Kumar, Mr. Vishal Kumar, Mr. Krishan Kant Kumar
For Respondent(s) – Mr. Manoj K. Mishra, Mr. Umesh Dubey, Ms. Madhulika, Mr. Anand Kumar Rai, Mr. Radeesh Kumar Mt, Mr. Amulya Dev Mishra