A criminal revision regarding the affixation of adulthood on a juvenile accused in a 302 IPC case was dismissed. The High Court condoned the delay and found no illegality in the rejection of the juvenile declaration.
The crimial revision was rejected as it lacks merit.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
Court No. - 51
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION DEFECTIVE No. - 613 of 2019
Revisionist :- Rohit (Minor) Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Mohammad Zakir Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J.
Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and Mr. V.K. Pandey, learned A.G.A. for the State.
The criminal revision is beyond time by 23 days. Cause shown is sufficient. The delay in filing the revision is condoned. The delay condonation application is allowed. Thus, the Court proceeds to hear the case on merits.
This revision has been filed by the revisionist with a prayer to set aside the order dated 8.4.2019 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Court No.12, Bulandshahar in Criminal Appeal No.23 of 2019 by means of which the order dated 19.1.2019 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Bulandshahar has been affirmed and the application of the revisionist for declaring him juvenile has been rejected in Complaint Case No.52 of 2018 u/s 302, 201 IPC PS Sikandara District Bulandshahar.
I have perused the impugned order dated 8.4.2019 by means of which Criminal Appeal No.23 of 2019 has been rejected. The court concerned while rejecting the said appeal has recorded the categorical finding to the following effect:-
10vihykFkhZ ds lEcU/k esa fo}ku fd'kksj U;k; cksMZ }kjk eqds'k dqekj] iz/kkuk/;kid izkFkfed fo|ky; xslqiqj dks ijhf{kr djk;k x;k gS] ftUgksaus vius c;ku esa vfHklk{; fd;k gS fd Nk= jksfgr us fnukad 17-07-2004 dks d{kk ,d esa nkf[kyk fy;k Fkk] Nk= dh tUefrfFk fo|ky; esa fnukad 05-10-1997 vafdr gSA
11blds vfrfjDr vihykFkhZ ds lEcU/k esa fo}ku fd'kksj U;k; cksMZ }kjk vipkjh dk fpfdRlh; ijh{k.k fnukad 27-08-2018 dks eq[; fpfdRlkf/kdkjh] cqyUn'kgj }kjk xfBr eSfMdy cksMZ ls djk;k x;k] ftlesa mldh vuqekfur vk;q 20&21 o"kZ vafdr dh x;h gSA 12vihykFkhZ ds lEcU/k esa fo}ku fd'kksj U;k; cksMZ }kjk iz/kk/;kid izkFkfed fo|ky; xslqiqj }kjk vipkjh Nk= jksfgr us fnukad 17-07-2004 dks d{kk ,d esa nkf[kyk fy;k Fkk] ftlesa mldh tUefrfFk fo|ky; esa fnukad 05-10-1997 vafdr gksus rFkk vipkjh ds
2
esfMdy esa vafdr vk;q 20&21 dk leFkZu gksus ds dkj.k vipkjh dh ?kVuk dh fnukad dks 20&21 o"kZ ekuk gS vkSj bl vk/kkj ij vipkjh&vfHk;qDr ds laj{kd }kjk izLrqr izkFkZuki= fnukafdr 31-052018@01-06-2018 dks [kkfjt fd;k x;k gSA
After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the order impugned as well as averments made in the present revision, this Court is of the opinion that the learned counsel for the revisionist could not point out any illegality or perversity in the impugned order.
Accordingly, the revision lacks merit and is rejected. Order Date :- 26.8.2019 SP
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the order afflicting the respondent as an adult and rejecting the juvenile declaration was arbitrary or perverse.
Whether the criminal revision filed belatedly can be accepted for consideration of merit.
Vipin Sinha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
