Allahabad High Court
Pawan Yadav (Minor) vs State Of U.P.And Another on 11 October, 2023
Bench: Subhash Chandra Sharma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:196180
Court No. - 80
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2080 of 2021
Revisionist :- Pawan Yadav (Minor)
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.And Another
Counsel for Revisionist :- Pradeep Singh Sengar,Hari Bans Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Kameshwar Singh
Hon'ble Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.
Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the revisionist today is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned counsel for the opposite party alongwith learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.
The present criminal revision has been preferred by the revisionist through his father 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 impugned judgment and order dated 03.03.2021 passed by learned Special Judge (POCSO Act)/Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.8, Ballia in Criminal Appeal No.13 of 2021 (CNR No. UPBL010014932021) (Pawan Yadav vs. State of U.P.) as well as order dated 12.02.2021 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Ballia in Criminal Case No.39/2020 (State vs. Pawan Yadav) arising out of Case Crime No.107/2020, under Sections 302, 201, 377 I.P.C. & Section 5(m)(r)/6 Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act-2012, Police Station Chitbaragaon, District Ballia by which the Court below was pleased to reject the bail application of the revisionist and also prays to release the revisionist/delinquent on bail in the aforesaid case.
It is submitted that in this case the revisionist was aged about 17 years and was juvenile at the time of alleged incident. Further submitted that incident is said to have taken place on 25.08.2020 in the night at about 8:00 P.M. when the deceased (aged about 10 years) went for attending natural call in the garden and did not come back. On search his body was found lying in a field of paddy and was taken to the Sadar Hospital, Ballia where doctors declared him to be dead. Further submitted that the incident took place on 25.08.2020 but F.I.R. was lodged on 27.08.2020 after delay of two days without any explanation thereto. As per version in F.I.R. the revisionist was seen with the deceased while going to the side of garden where he committed his murder. The revisionist was named in the F.I.R. only on the basis of suspicion without any cogent evidence on record. The statement of witnesses namely Ramji Yadav, Nakul Yadav and Laxmina were recorded by the I.O. during the course of investigation in which Ramji Yadav who was nana of the deceased stated that he saw the revisionist who was unclothed while pressing the deceased who was crying for help but he did not care for that and went to his village. Likewise Nakul Yadav who was mama of the deceased made statement and on that basis Laxmina the mother of the deceased also made statement before the I.O. It is also submitted that the aforesaid witnesses are near relatives of the deceased even though the story as concocted by them regarding commission of murder of the deceased was not disclosed for 2 days but on third day present F.I.R. was lodged by concocting false story. It is also submitted that the statement of one other witness Bheem Yadav was also recorded who was present at the time of inquest with other inquest witnesses who formed the opinion that some wild animal had chased the deceased as a result he would have fallen in water and died. It also shows the fact that present revisionist caused the said incident was not seen by Bheem Yadav also. In this way, the complicity of the revisionist cannot be said to be established on the basis of material on record. The D.N.A. report has also been filed through supplementary affidavit in which the complicity of the revisionist could not be established. All these facts were not taken into consideration by the learned J.J. Board as well as learned appellate court while considering the appeal of the revisionist. The report submitted by the D.P.O. is also not adverse for the present delinquent even though the juvenility of the delinquent was not considered either by the J.J. Board or by the appellate court and also the provisions as contained u/s 12 of the aforesaid Act were not considered by the courts below while passing the aforesaid orders. The delinquent is in Juvenile Care Home since 28.08.2020 (i.e. more than 3 years) and his psychology is being affected adversely, therefore, requested to set aside the orders passed by the J.J. Board as well as appellate court and allow the present criminal revision as the orders passed by the courts below cannot be said to be in conformity with law.
Learned counsel for the opposite party as well as learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer as aforesaid and contended that the statement of Ramji Yadav, Nakul Yadav & Bheem Yadav those were nana, mama and villager who identified the revisionist while committing the murder of the deceased (aged about 10 years) with whom unnatural offence was committed by the revisionist. In this way, there is sufficient evidence on record to show the complicity of the revisionist in committing the murder of the deceased.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submission made by learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned A.G.A., perusal of record, the provisions as contained u/s 12 of Juvenile Justice Act, the report submitted by the District Probation Officer, there is nothing on record to establish the complicity of the revisionist in commission of the alleged offence and the period the present delinquent remained in child care home, it appears that Juvenile Justice Board as well as the appellate court had not considered the relevant provisions and the material on record in well manner but passed the orders without applying their judicial mind. In this way, there appears ground in this revision and the orders passed by the Juvenile Justice Board as well as learned appellate court are liable to be set aside.
Accordingly, the orders passed by Juvenile Justice Board dated 12.02.2021 and the appellate court dated 03.03.2021 are, hereby, set aside and the present criminal revision is hereby, allowed.
It is directed that delinquent/applicant be released on bail in the aforesaid case on executing person bond by the revisionist (father of the delinquent) and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Juvenile Justice Board concerned on following conditions :-
(i) The natural guardian/father will furnish an undertaking that upon release on bail the revisionist will not be permitted to go into contact or association with any known criminal or allowed to be exposed to any moral, physical, or psychological danger and further that the father will ensure that the juvenile will not repeat the offence.
(ii) The natural guardian/father will further furnish an undertaking to the effect that the juvenile will pursue his study at the appropriate level which he would be encouraged to do besides other constructive activities and not be allowed to waste his time in unproductive and excessive recreational pursuits.
(iii) Juvenile and the natural guardian/father will report to the Probation Officer on the first Monday of every calendar month.
(iv) The Probation Officer will keep a strict vigil on the activities of the juvenile and regularly draw up his social investigation report that would be submitted to the Juvenile Justice Board concerned on such a periodical basis as the Juvenile Justice Board may determine.
Order Date :- 11.10.2023
Ashok Gupta
