Allahabad High Court
Juvenile X vs State Of U.P. on 7 October, 2025
Author: Siddharth
Bench: Siddharth
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:177313
Reserved On:- 09.09.2025
Delivered On:- 07.10.2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 908 of 2025
Juvenile X
.....Revisionist(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s)
:
Sanjay Vikram Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
G.A.
In Chamber
HON'BLE SIDDHARTH, J.
-
As per office report dated 23.07.2025 notice has been served on opposite party no. 2 but no one has turned up to oppose this revision.
-
Learned A.G.A has placed custody certificate of revisionist before this court which is taken on record.
-
Heard Sri Sanjay Vikram Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A for the State and perused the material on record.
-
The present criminal revision has been preferred against the order dated 21.01.2025 passed by Children's Court/Additional District and Session Judge/Special Judge POCSO Act, Jaunpur in Criminal Appeal No. 51/2019 (Rakesh Kumar Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh) arising out of Case Crime No. 190/1984, under Section 302/34 I.P.C. at Police Station- Kerakat, District- Jaunpur.
-
It appears from the record that the revisionist, Rakesh Kumar, was tried in S.T. No. 185 of 1981 along with three co-accused, namely, Maya Shankar, Kripa Shankar and Shiv Shankar, for committing the offence under Section- 302/34 IPC.
-
The trial court by the judgment and order dated 17.01.1984 convicted Maya Shankar, Kripa Shankar, Shiv Shankar and revisionist, Rakesh Kumar, for imprisonment for life under Section 302/34 IPC and the revisionist was further sentenced to six months rigorous imprisonment under Section 323 IPC while the other three co-accused were convicted and sentenced under Section 323/34 IPC. A Criminal Appeal No. 190 / 1984 was preferred by the accused before this court, which was also dismissed, but the revisionist, Rakesh Kumar, who was appellant no. 4 in the above appeal before the High Court was found to be juvenile on the date of occurrence and the Juvenile Justice Board, Jaunpur, was directed to pass the appropriate order of sentence in respect of revisionist, Rakesh Kumar, by the judgment and order dated 14.09.2018 passed by this court.
-
The Juvenile Justice Board, Jaunpur, by the order dated 13.06.2019 sentenced the revisionist to 3 years imprisonment and directed that the period already undergone in custody shall be adjusted in the period of sentence. The order of sentence dated 13.06.2019 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board aforesaid was challenged before the Children's Court which affirmed by same by the judgment and order dated 21.01.2025 and the same is under challenge in the above noted revision.
-
Counsel for the respondents has vehemently opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the revisionist and has submitted that the conviction of the revisionist has already been upheld by this court and the same has not been challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Therefore, the findings recorded by this court affirming the conviction of the revisionist has become final. In compliance of the order of this court, the Juvenile Justice Board has already passed the sentence of three years against the revisionist, which is the maximum sentence which can be awarded under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 but it has not been challenged in the above noted revisionist only the application order is under challenged.
-
After hearing the rival submissions, this court finds that as per section 27 of the U.P. Children Act, no court is required to sentence a child to death or transportation or imprisonment for any term or commit him to prison in default of payment of fine. As per section 32 sub-section (1) that when a child is found to have committed an offence of so serious nature that the court is of the opinion that no punishment under the provision of this Act, it is authorised to inflict, is sufficient, the court shall order the offender to be kept in safe custody in such place or manner as it thinks fit and shall report the case for orders to the State Government. In the only proviso to the Section, it is provided that no period of detention so ordered shall exceed the maximum period of imprisonment to which the child could have been sentenced for the offence committed.
-
It is further clear that the U.P. Children's Act, 1951 has already been repealed and as per Section 25 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 all the proceedings in respect of a child pending before any Board or court on the date of commencement of this Act shall be continued as if the Act has not been enacted.
-
This court further finds that no proceedings under the U.P. Children's Act, 1951 was ever initiated against the revisionist. It was only after the order dated 14.09.2018 passed by this court in Criminal Appeal No. 190 of 1984 that for the first time the sentence of the revisionist for committing the offence of murder was directed to be determined. Therefore, the argument of counsel for the revisionist relying upon Section 32 of the U.P. Children's Act, 1951 is without any substance. In the year 2018 the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 was in force with effect from 01.01.2016 and therefore, the Juvenile Justice Board has awarded the maximum punishment of three years to the revisionist as per the provision of the Act. The custody certificate of revisionist produced before this court shows that he has undergone sentence of only three months and 27 days till 08.06.2025.
-
The conviction of revisionist has already affirmed by this court which has attained finality. He has been awarded the maximum sentence which can be awarded to a juvenile under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.
-
This court does not finds any ground to reduce the sentence determined by the Juvenile Justice Board. The life sentence awarded to the revisionist by the trial court has already been set aside.
-
The sentence awarded by the Juvenile Justice Board for committing the heinous offence of murder in furtherance of common intention along with three co-accused is justified.
-
The orders passed by both the courts below are justified and call for no interference by this court.
-
The revision, being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed.
-
Let the lower court record be returned to the trial court within period of one week and this order be also notified to the trial court.
(Siddharth,J.)
October 7, 2025
Rohit
