Allahabad High Court
Durgesh Kumar @ Rohit vs State Of U.P. And Another on 16 March, 2021
Bench: Gautam Chowdhary
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 68
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1467 of 2015
Revisionist :- Durgesh Kumar @ Rohit
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Revisionist :- Bashishtha Narain Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt.Advocate
Hon'ble Gautam Chowdhary,J.
This Criminal Revision has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 05.08.2014 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Court No. 6/ Special Judge POCSO Act, 2012, Basti, in Case Crime No. 568 of 2013 (Durgesh Kumar @ Rohit vs. State of U.P.), under section 376, 511 I.P.C. and 11(1) POCSO Act, Police Station- Kotwali Basti, District- Basti whereby the juvenile application 3(?) in Criminal Misc. Application No.75/12/2013 filed by the revisionist has been rejected.
Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the State.
Brief facts of the case is that according to the F.I.R. lodged When the prosecutrix aged about 11 years was alone at her house the revisionist entered into the house and tried to molest her. The incident occurred on 21.05.2013 at about 11:00 a.m.
Learned counsel for the revisionist has argued that the impugned order has been passed erroneously by the trial court by rejecting the prayer of the accused as the revisionist was a student of a primary school and according to the Transfer Certificate produced by the school before the lower court the revisionist was minor at the time of commission of the alleged crime for which his application has been wrongly rejected by the learned trial court.
Learned A.G.A. on the other hand submits that transfer certificate in question which was said to be issued on 31.05.2013 the date of birth of the revisionist was inscribed as 10.08.1996 whereas for the verification purpose when the principal of the said school was summoned it came to the knowledge that the real date of birth of the revisionist was different. That according to the statement of the Principal of the school there seems to be manipulation and overwriting has been done in the transfer certificate of the revisionist in order to prove himself juvenile.
I have considered the rival submissions made at the Bar.
The impugned order as has been passed by the lower appellate court is a well reasoned order considering all the facts and circumstances of the case. The relevant law has also been adverted to and appreciated in right perspective. The Apex Court observation made in the case of Om Prakash vs. State of Rajasthan and another (2012) 5 SCC 2011 has also been considered and the relevant portion of judgment has also been quoted. It goes without saying that the alleged minors cannot be allowed to have a free play committing heinous offences under the pretence of being minor and then claim relief. In the present matter this Court does not see any good reason to take a different view than the one taken by the lower courts as the impugned order do not suffer from any illegality or incorrectness and therefore there is no good reason to allow this revision.
Accordingly, the revision is liable to be dismissed and is, hereby, dismissed.
Order Date :- 16.3.2021
shiv
