Allahabad High Court
Ajay Kumar Singh @ Babloo vs State Of U.P. & Ors. on 15 March, 2021
Bench: Dinesh Kumar Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 16
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 416 of 2020
Revisionist :- Ajay Kumar Singh @ Babloo
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. & Ors.
Counsel for Revisionist :- Indrajeet Shukla
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.
1. Present revision under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 read with Section 394/401 Cr.P.C. has been filed against the judgment and order dated 29.06.2020 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gonda in Criminal Case No.3688 of 2020: State vs Atul Singh and Ors arising out of FIR No.66 of 2020 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302, 504, 506 IPC, 7 Criminal Law Amendment, Police Station Umari Begumganj, Gonda.
2. Learned Magistrate in exercise of powers under Section 94 of the Act of 2015 has accepted the application of the accused-Udai Pratap SIngh, Pushpendra Singh and Aditya Kumar for being tried as Juveniles and referred the matter to the Juvenile Justice Board, Gonda. Age of two accused i.e. Pushpendra Singh was determined to be 17 years 8 months and 24 days and Udai Pratap Singh was determined to be 17 years 8 months and 29 days. Their cases have been referred to the POCSO Court.
3. Mr. Indrajeet Shukla, learned counsel for the revisionist submits that he does not want to press this revision in respect of respondents- Udai Pratap Singh and Pushpendra Singh. However, in respect of accused-Aditya Kumar, learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the case regarding claim of the juvenility is to be determined by the Juvenile Justice Board and not by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has recorded the age of the accused-Aditya Kumar as 17 years 3 months and two days on the date of incident only on the basis of family register in which several family members alleged to have been born on 1st January. He further submits that the Juvenile Justice Board may be influenced by the observation of the learned Magistrate and, therefore, this Court may pass an order directing the Juvenile Justice Board to determine the claim of juvenility of accused-Aditya Kumar without being influenced by any of the observation of the learned Magistrate.
4. Mr. R.P. Shukla, learned counsel for respondent No.3 does not dispute this submission that it is the power of the Juvenile Justice Board to finally determine the claim of the juvenilty of an accused.
5. In view of the aforesaid submissions, learned Juvenile Justice Board, Gonda is directed to determine the claim of juvenility of accused-Aditya Kumar in accordance with law without being influence by any of the observation of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate in its impugned order dated 29.06.2020. After determining the claim of the juvenility of accused-Aditya Kumar, Juvenile Justice Board will pass appropriate order regarding trial of the accused-Aditya Kumar.
6. With the aforesaid direction, present revision stands finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 15.3.2021
prateek
