X (Juvenile) vs State Of U.P. And Another
2022 Latest Caselaw 22341 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 91
 
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1638 of 2021
 
Revisionist :- X (Juvenile)
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Revisionist :- Dharmendra Kumar Singh,Amar Singh Yadav,Babu Lal Ram
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Suneel Kumar
 

 
Hon'ble Mrs. Jyotsna Sharma,J.

1. Heard Sri Amar Singh Yadav, learned counsel for the revisionist and learned AGA for the State, are present. None responds for the respondent no. 2.

2. This revision has been filed challenging the judgment and order dated 16.12.2020 passed by the Additional Session Judge/Special Judge, POCSO Act, Jaunpur in Criminal Appeal No. 46 of 2020 and order dated 25.11.2020 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Jaunpur arising out of Case Crime No. 168 of 2020 under Section 376, 376A, B, 506 IPC and Section 3/4, 4(2), 5(da) of POCSO Act.

3. This present FIR was lodged with an allegation that 11 years old girl was put to sexual assault by the accused, who was found aged merely 14 years by the Juvenile Justice Board. Before proceeding further it may be noted that the revisionist does not want to press any of the grounds taken in the revision memo for certain reasons on the instructions of his client.

4. I went through the impugned order. In my view, when a boy of such an immature age tends to commit the offence of such nature, he may be in dire need of continued supervision and professional counselling which may be provided at the protection home.

5. The step to keep him in detention may be to serve his own best interest. The healthy growth of child into an adult shall certainly prevent the ends of justice being defeated.

6. Hence, I do not find any good reason to interfere. The revision is dismissed.

Order Date :- 21.12.2022

Vik/-