Allahabad High Court
Bhullan Bind vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 7 October, 2025
Author: Siddharth
Bench: Siddharth
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:177288
Reserved On:- 09.09.2025
Delivered On:- 07.10.2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3954 of 2025
Bhullan Bind
.....Revisionist(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s)
:
Atmaram Nadiwal, Dinesh Kumar Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
Dharmendra Kumar, G.A., Pooja Thakur
In Chamber
HON'BLE SIDDHARTH, J.
-
Heard Sri Dinesh Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for revisionist; Sri Dharmendra Kumar, learned counsel for respondent no.2; learned A.G.A for State and perused the material on record.
-
The present criminal revision has been preferred against the impugned order dated 01.12.2023 passed by Special Judge, (POCSO Act), Azamgarh in Criminal Appeal No. 98 of 2017 (Bhullan Bind vs. Vidhi Vivadit Kishor) and order dated 17.08.2017 as well as order dated 07.06.2017 passed by Juvenile Justice Board in Case Crime No. 53 of 2017, under Sections- 376(2)(1) IPC and Section of Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Police Station- Baradah, District- Azamgarh.
-
The brief facts of the case are that by the order dated 07.06.2017 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Azamgarh, accused was declared juvenile aged about 17 years, 1 month and 14 days on the date of incident. Against the aforesaid order, the complainant filed an application stating that the accused has got the declaration of his age on the basis of producing fabricated documents before the Juvenile Justice Board and hence the Head Master of college from where the transfer certificate was obtained by the accused may be summoned for determination of his correct age. The Juvenile Justice Board by the order dated 17.08.2019 rejected an application of the complainant on the same day on the ground that the accused has confessed to the commission of the alleged offence and the hearing of trial has already been conducted and 19.08.2017 is the date fixed for judgment. Therefore, the prayer made by the complainant cannot be entertained. Thereafter, by the judgment and order dated 19.08.2017 the Juvenile Justice Board convicted the accused under Section 376(2)(1) IPC and his sentence was reduced to the period already undergone in jail / Child Protection Home. He was punished with a fine of Rs. 60,000/- under the aforesaid Section of IPC and also with fine of Rs. 25,000/- under Section of POCSO Act. Half of the fine was directed to be paid to the victim.
-
The judgment and order dated 19.08.2017 has not been annexed with the criminal revision noted above but in the trial court's record, it has been found and perused by the court. The order dated 19.08.2017 was subjected to challenge before the Appellate Court which dismissed the appeal of revisionist by the judgment and order dated 01.12.2023 and hence this revision.
-
After hearing the rival submissions, this court finds that when the accused was declared juvenile by the order dated 07.06.2017 by the Juvenile Justice Board, no revision or appeal was preferred against the same. Thereafter, on the basis of admission of guilt by the accused, he was punished, convicted and sentenced by the judgment and order dated 19.08.2017 by the Juvenile Justice Board. In the appeal before the Appellate Court the plea was taken that the documents produced before the Juvenile Justice Board by the accused were fabricated and after calling the witness from the school it should be reconsidered.
-
The Appellate Court has held that the issue of age of the accused was finally determined by the order dated 07.06.2017 by the Juvenile Justice Board which has attained finality and now after the judgment and order of conviction dated 19.08.2017, the same cannot be raised again before the Appellate Court.
-
In view of the above consideration, this Court is of the opinion that there is no infirmity or illegality in the orders passed by both the Courts below. The same are affirmed.
-
The revision, being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed.
-
Let the lower court and Appellate court records be returned to the courts concerned within period of one week along with a copy of this order.
(Siddharth,J.)
October 7, 2025
Rohit
