Allahabad High Court
Dharam Das @ Dharmraj Kushwah vs State Of U.P. And Another on 9 October, 2023
Bench: Subhash Chandra Sharma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:193705
Court No. - 80
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1094 of 2022
Revisionist :- Dharam Das @ Dharmraj Kushwah
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Revisionist :- Rang Nath Pandey,Rahul Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Mrityunjay Dwivedi
Hon'ble Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.
List revised. None appeared on behalf of opposite party no. 2.
Heard learned counsel for revisionist, learned A.G.A. for State and perused the record.
The present criminal revision has been preferred by the revisionist under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act-2015 (hereinafter referred to as "J.J. Act, 2015) to allow the present revision and set aside the judgment and order dated 24.11.2021 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions/Special Judge (POCSO Act), Allahabad in Criminal Appeal No. 88 of 2021 in Case Crime No. 287 of 2021 under Sections 376, 363 IPC and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Dhoomanganj, District Prayagraj by which the learned court below has allowed the criminal appeal of opposite party no. 2 and dismissed the order dated 13.09.2021 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Allahabad.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that in this case, the opposite party no. 2 was major at the time of alleged incident. By producing manipulated document, he claimed the juvenility which was accepted by the learned J.J. Board. Even though his bail application was rejected by learned J.J. Board which was challenged before the learned appellate court, objection was also raised by the revisionist before the learned appellate court regarding the age of the child but it was not taken into consideration but bail was allowed and the child was released on bail in favour of natural guardian. In this way, without considering the factor of the age of the child the order passed by the learned appellate court cannot be said to be in conformity with law, therefore, requested to set aside the order passed by appellate court and allow the criminal revision.
Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer as aforesaid and urged that in this case, the claim of juvenility was decided by the learned J.J. Board as a result he was declared juvenile aged about 16 years, 5 months and 20 days at the time of alleged incident and his claim of juvenility was not challenged before the learned appellate court by the revisionist, therefore, that is still in subsistence and child cannot be said to be major, though in appeal child was released on bail by the learned appellate court which cannot be said to be lawful because he took the victim and also entered into marriage and established physical relations which cannot be said to be consensus as victim being minor.
On considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned A.G.A. and perusal of record, the statement of the victim as recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. before the learned Magistrate that she was aged about 17 years and was in affair with the opposite party no. 2 that was the reason she went with him to Varanasi by bus and there she entered into marriage and lived in a rented room as husband and wife. Later on, case was got registered by her father that was the reason she came back to Prayagraj. She also expressed her willingness to live with opposite party no. 2 and no any statement regarding use of force or violence was made against opposite party no. 2. This fact was also taken into consideration by the learned appellate court and appeal was allowed. There appears, no any illegality or impropriety in the order passed by the learned appellate court. It is also to note that the claim of juvenility as accepted by the learned J.J. Board is not under challenge either in this Court or before any other court as per submission made by learned counsel for the revisionist, therefore, it cannot be said that he was not child at the time of alleged incident as a result, this revision being devoid of merit is likely to be dismissed.
Accordingly, the present revision is hereby dismissed.
Order Date :- 9.10.2023
A. Singh
