Ravindra Kumar vs State Of U.P. And Anr.
2013 Latest Caselaw 6452 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Reserved
 
A.F.R.
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2781 of 2011
 

 
Revisionist :- Ravindra Kumar
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr.
 
Counsel for Revisionist :- Nipun Singh,Amit Daga,N.K. Sharma
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,Alkesh Singh Chauhan,Ram Raj Pandey
 

 
Hon'ble Ashok Srivastava,J.

Opposite party no. 2 Dharmpal lodged a case on 23.9.2010 at Police Station Doghat, district Baghpat against the revisionist Ravindra Kumar and one Ankit. The allegations are that both the accused persons named in the F.I.R. intercepted the minor girl of opposite party no. 2, dragged her inside a tubewell room and thereafter revisionist committed rape upon the girl. After lodging of the F.I.R. the matter was investigated and a chargesheet was filed against the revisionist. The case was committed to the court of Sessions. During the course of trial the revisionist moved an application before the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge claiming himself to be a juvenile. He stated that his date of birth is 3.4.1995 and on the relevant date he was less than 18 years of age. The learned Additional Sessions Judge made a detailed inquiry to determine the age of the revisionist. He examined various papers and recorded statements of some persons. Thereafter, vide his order dated 5.7.2010 he held that on the relevant date the revisionist was above 18 years of age and, therefore, the sessions trial will continue to proceed in his court. Feeling aggrieved by such order the present revision has been filed.

I have heard Sri Amit Daga, learned counsel for the revisionist, Mr. Ram Raj Pandey, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 as well as the learned A.G.A. and perused the records. I have also perused the case laws produced before me.

It has been submitted from the side of the revisionist that the learned Judge has not given the benefit of one year to the revisionist as has been provided in Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children), Rules, 2007 (for short the Rules) He has also stated that due to this reason the revisionist could not get the benefit of a welfare legislation. It has also been argued by Mr. Daga that if margin of one year is given to the revisionist he shall be declared a juvenile and his case shall be referable to the Board.

The revision has been vehemently opposed by learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 and the learned A.G.A. They have stated that the learned trial judge has rightly refused to give the benefit of one year in favour of the applicant. It has further been submitted that the applicant committed rape upon a minor girl. It has also been submitted that the offence was committed in a pre-planned manner and a minor girl was badly ravished which is indicative of the mental and psychological maturity of the revisionist.

At the very outset I would like to mentioned the case JT 2010 (2) SC 603 (Jabar Singh Vs. Dinesh and another) wherein the Apex Court has stated that a revision cannot be converted into an appeal and the revisional court is not permitted to analyse the facts of the case because it is for the learned lower courts to give findings regarding facts of the case. Therefore, I have to confine myself only to the legal aspects of the case.

In 2013 (81) ACC 595 (Annu @ Vikram Vs. State of U.P. and another) this Court has said that the Juvenile Justice Act has been enacted keeping in view the welfare of minor offenders and it should be interpreted keeping in view the purpose of the Act. On the other hand the Apex Court has said in (2008) 13 Supreme Court Cases 133 (Babloo Pasi Vs. State of Jharkhand and another) that a juvenile is entitled to full benefit of the welfare legislation but the Court should also ensure that protection under the Act is not misused by unscrupulous offenders involved in serious crimes. Therefore, necessity of a cautious approach has been impressed upon. If we compare the two case laws it is evident that no straight jacket formula can be given in such type of cases. The Court has to see the entire nature of the alleged crime and maturity/immaturity of a juvenile in conflict with law and thereafter it should be decided whether benefit of one year should be given to the juvenile keeping in view his age as determined by the Medical Board on the basis of his ossification test and other medical norms or not. In the instant case it has been factually finalised by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge that on the relevant date the age of the revisionist was more than 18 years. Keeping in view his medical report this factual aspect cannot be analysed by this Court keeping in view the Jabar Singh's case (supra).

The relevant portion of Rule 12(3)(b) of the Rules is as follows :

12(3)(b) : and only in the absence of either (i), (ii) or (iii) of clause (a) above, the medical opinion will be sought from a duly constituted Medical Board, which will declare the age of the juvenile or child. In case exact assessment of the age cannot be done, the Court or the Board, as the case may be, the Committee, for the reasons to be recorded by them, may, if considered necessary, give benefit to the child or juvenile by considering his/her age on lower side within the margin of one year.

From perusal of the provisions contained in this clause it is evident that in case the exact assessment of the age cannot be done, the Court or the Board or, as the case may be, the committee, for the reasons to be recorded by them, may, if considered necessary, give benefit to the child or juvenile by considering his/her age on lower side within the margin of one year. It has further been provided that while passing the order in such case the Board etc. shall after taking into consideration such evidence as may be available, or the medical opinion as the case may be, take a decision. It has also been mentioned that such conclusion shall be final.

In the instant case learned lower court has given detailed reasoning for not giving such benefit to the revisionist. Since granting of age relaxation is at the discretion of the court subject to recording of reasons, a revisional court cannot interfere in such reasonings if the same are not found illegal in the case. I have perused the facts of the case. The revisionist in a planned manner with the help and aid of the co-accused dragged the girl to a lonely room of a tubewell and committed rape upon her. Rape is a typical kind of crime. It is not a crime which is committed in fit of anger. A rape can only be committed if a male knows the pleasure of sexual intercourse and has knowledge of sensual feelings. Rape cannot be committed at the spur of the moment or in the heat of the moment. In the instant case the way in which the poor girl was dragged inside a room and ravished shows the criminal and mature mentality of the revisionist. In such a circumstance if the learned trial judge did not give the benefit of one year margin in his age, in my considered opinion he has committed no illegality.

On the basis of the above discussion I am of the view that there is no force in this revision and accordingly the revision is dismissed.

If the revisionist is in jail he will continue in jail but if he is not in jail and not on bail and is confined in a protective home made for juveniles in conflict with law, the revisionist shall be removed to the custody of the jail. Stay order stands vacated.

Order Date :- 11.10.2013

S.B.