Allahabad High Court
X Juvenile vs State Of U.P. And Another on 8 September, 2025
Author: Siddharth
Bench: Siddharth
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:157334
Reserved On:-26.08.2025 Delivered On:-08.09.2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3777 of 2025
X Juvenile
.....Revisionist(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s)
:
Ajay Kumar Gautam
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
G.A.
Court No. - 47
HON'BLE SIDDHARTH, J.
1. Heard Shri Ajay Kumar Gautam, learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.
2. This revision has been filed against the judgment and order dated 08.04.2025, passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Muzaffar Nagar, in case no. 86/9 of 2006 (State Vs. Juvenile X1 and another) arising out of case crime no. 369 of 1999, under section- 376 of I.P.C. and section 3(1)(12) of the SC/ST Act, Police Station- Kandhala, District- Muzaffar Nagar, whereby the Juvenile Justice Board, Muzaffar Nagar, directed to keep the revisionist in the custody of Special Home for improvement as well as the judgment and order dated 06.06.2025, passed by Addl. District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act), Muzaffarnagar, in Criminal Appeal No. 50 of 2025.
3. The prosecution case as per F.I.R. is that daughter of the informant, aged about 7 years, was going to village for bringing food at about 02:00 p.m. when the revisionist and co-accused dragged her in the field. While co-accused caught hold of her hands, the revisionist committed forceful rape against her. When she raised alarm, Mahipal, son of Asha, and the revisionist reached the place of incident and caught hold of the accused persons on the spot who informed their names and addresses. Blood was oozing from private part of child victim and her cheeks were badly bitten. Her clothes were also full of blood. He took her daughter and the accused in tractor to the police station and lodged the F.I.R. Before the trial court, charges were framed against the accused under section 376 I.P.C., and section 3(1)(12) of the SC/ST Act.
4. The revisionist was declared juvenile by the Children's Court vide order dated 08.02.2000.
5. The prosecution produced P.W.-1,informant; P.W.-2, Smt Neelam; P.W.-3, victim; P.W.-4, Dr. Manoj Kumar Garg, and P.W.-5, H.M. Chotte Lal, before the Board to prove the prosecution case.
6. The witnesses proved the allegations on the basis of oral and medical evidence on record. In the medical evidence of the child swelling on her left cheek was found. In her internal examination, her perineum and mons pubis were found stained in blood and tear at 11:00 clock possession on port fornics (vagina) extending to perineum and posterior fornics was found. Stitching was found on her private part by the doctor. Hymen was torned irregularly and was bleeding on touch.
7. The Juvenile Justice Board, after considering the evidence on record directed the conviction of the revisionist under section 376 IPC and directed him to be sent for one year and half years to Special Home. Period of custody undergone of about 1 month and 28 days was directed to be adjusted.
8. The appellate court has affirmed the order passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, hence this revision.
9. Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that there are major contradictions in the statements of P.W.-1, P.W.-2 and P.W.-3 and their statements were not reliable. The victim was not examined under section 164 Cr.P.C. The investigating officer of this case was not examined before the trial court. The Juvenile Justice Board committed error in sending revisionist to special home when he is aged about 40 years now and has no criminal history. He is the only bread earner of his family. His wife and children shall suffer grave hardships in case he is incarcerated in jail. The incident was committed in the year 1999 and therefore there is no justification for sending him to special home at this stage.
10. Learned counsel for the revisionist has further submitted that the appellate court has relied upon section 21 and 22 of the Juvenile Justice Board Act, 1986 and has failed to extend the benefit of Section 15 of Juvenile Justice Board (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. He has relied upon the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Jitendra Singh @ Babbo an Another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2013 0 Supreme (SC) 620.
11. Learned AGA has opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the revisionist. However, no one has turned up to oppose this revision on behalf of informant.
12. This Court finds that the argument of the learned counsel for the revisionist are not correct. For default of the investigating officer of getting the statement of victim recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C., the entire prosecution case cannot be disbelieved. There are no major contradictions in the statements of P.W.-1, P.W.-2 and P.W.-3 and considering the time lag such contradictions are bound to come. The incident took place in the year 1999 and in the year 2025, the investigating officer cannot be found. There was no reason for falsely implicating the revisionist which has been proved by the witnesses before the trial court. The direction of the Juvenile Justice Board for sending the revisionist to Special Home for one and a half years is however not justified.
13. This Court further finds that the appellate court has considered the Act of 2000 and has held that according to the aforesaid Act also, the accused can be kept in protective custody. The section 16 of the Act, 2000 provides that no juvenile cannot be subjected to death or imprisonment for life and, therefore, the punishment of one and half years awarded to the revisionist is justified and calls for no interference.
14. The revision lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.
15. Keeping in view his age about 40 years, the order of the Juvenile Justice Board dated 08.04.2025 is modified and it is directed that the revisionist shall be sent to jail for carrying out remaining sentence awarded to him as per section 20(2)(ii) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children)Act, 2015. The period of custody undergone by the revisionist shall be adjusted.
(Siddharth,J.)
September 8, 2025
Abhishek
