Allahabad High Court
X Minor And Another vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 6 October, 2025
Author: Siddharth
Bench: Siddharth
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:176185
Reserved On:-22.09.2025 Delivered On:-06.10.2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2942 of 2025
X Minor And Another
.....Revisionist(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s)
:
Jitendra Kumar, Keshav Hari Dixit, Purushottam Dixit
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
G.A.
In Chamber
HON'BLE SIDDHARTH, J.
1. Despite service of notice on 15.07.2025 on opposite party nos. 3 and 4 no one has turned up to oppose this revision.
2. Heard Sri Purushottam Dixit, learned counsel for the revisionists and learned A.G.A for the state-respondent no. 1 and perused the record.
3. This criminal appeal has been filed against the order dated 29.04.2025 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge (POCSO) Court No.2, Aligarh, dismissing the Criminal Appeal No. 64/2022 as well as the order dated 09.05.2022 passed by Principal Magistrate Juvenile Justice Board, Aligarh, in Criminal Case No. 150 of 2017 arising out of crime no. 129 of 2017, under sections 376-D of I.P.C., and section 5G/6 of POCSO Act, Police Station- Dando, District- Aligarh.
4. The revisionists, X and Y, were charged with the commission of offence of gang rape against minor sister of the informant aged about 13 years. The Juvenile Justice Board after consideration of the evidence on record convicted and sentenced both the revisionists for committing the offences under Section 376-D and 5/6 of POCSO Act. They were sentenced two years and five months social service under the supervision of Chief Medical Officer, Aligarh in Deen Dayal Hospital /Zila Malkhan Singh Hospital, Aligarh w.e.f., 11.05.2022 for 8 hours daily without affecting their education .
5. The Judgment and Order of conviction passed by the Juvenile Justice Board dated 09, May,2022 was upheld by the Children's Court by the Judgment and Order dated 29.04.2025 and hence this revision.
6. After hearing the rival submissions this court finds that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. This court after considering the statement of witnesses, including the child victim, does not finds any ground to interfere with the Judgments and Orders passed by both the Courts below. The argument that the Medical Report of the victim does not supports the prosecution case will not affect the result of the trial since the victim and other prosecution witnesses have proved the commission of alleged offence against the revisionists beyond reasonable doubt.
7. In view of the above this court does not finds any perversity in the findings recorded by both the courts below.
8. The Judgment of conviction and order of sentence was passed on 09 May,2022, when 7 months, 3 days of detention in Child Protection Home has already been completed by the revisionists, therefore, now they must have completed their sentence of punishment. The interim order was passed by this Court only on 22.07.2025 which has remained in-force till date. The counsel for the revisionists has submitted that the punishment awarded was not justified since 8 hours of working in the Hospital after going to the Hospital by the revisionists did not left any time for them for study which was also directed to be continued by the revisionists.
9. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of this case this court finds that the Judgments of conviction passed by the Courts below do not warrant any interference, however the sentence awarded revisionist to reduced to the period already under gone, if not already completed.
10. Revision stands partly allowed.
(Siddharth,J.)
October 6, 2025
Abhishek
