The Allahabad High Court on Tuesday dismissed a revision petition filed by a young man identified as ''Juvenile X,'' who had been seeking recognition as a minor at the time of a 2016 murder case in Fatehpur. The single- judge bench of Justice Siddharth upheld earlier findings of both the Juvenile Justice Board and the Children's Court, holding that the claims of minority were riddled with contradictions and unreliable evidence.
Read in Hindi
Background
The case dates back to April 1, 2016, when an FIR was lodged at Hathgaon police station in Fatehpur district under charges of murder, criminal intimidation, wrongful confinement, and provisions of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
Juvenile X, son of Narendra Singh Yadav, had initially insisted before the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) that no school records existed for him, prompting the Board to direct a medical age test. The ossification test placed his age at about 19 years, making him an adult at the time of the offence. The JJB, relying on that report, rejected his plea of juvenility in August 2016.
Read Also : Delhi High Court Acquits Arjun in 2013 Minor's Case, Says Prosecution Relied on Forged Birth Certificate
Later, during appeal proceedings, the defence produced school certificates claiming his date of birth was 15 April 2001, which would make him just shy of 15 years on the date of the crime. This about- turn raised serious doubts in the eyes of the courts.
Court's Observations
The appellate court in Fatehpur, while examining the fresh documents, noted troubling irregularities. The principal of Chaudhary Raghunath Sahai Inter College testified that the school register originally had a different date of birth written in red ink- 30 June 2014- which was later overwritten with 15 April 2001 in blue ink.
''Such cutting and rewriting cannot inspire confidence,'' the appellate judge remarked at the time.
The High Court, in its turn, took note of these inconsistencies. Justice Siddharth observed,
''The revisionist made contradictory claims before different forums- first asserting absence of documents and then producing doubtful records. This conduct weakens his own plea.''
The bench also pointed to the precedent laid down in Parag Bhati v. State of U.P. (2016), where the Supreme Court held that juvenility claims must be strictly scrutinized in heinous offences like murder.
Decision
After weighing the evidence, the High Court concluded that there was no ground to interfere with the concurrent findings of the Juvenile Justice Board and the Children’s Court. Both had found the claim of minority unreliable.
''The revision lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed,'' the order stated clearly, bringing an end to the nearly decade- long tussle over the accused's age.
With this dismissal, the case will continue to be treated as one involving an adult accused, leaving Juvenile X to face trial under the regular criminal justice system rather than the protective umbrella of the Juvenile Justice Act.
Case Title : Juvenile X vs. State of U.P. and Another
Case Number: Criminal Revision No. 3685 of 2025
