Noore Alam Thru. His Mother Smt. Roshan Jahan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Court No. - 27 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 49 of 2023

Revisionist :- Noore Alam Thru. His Mother Smt. Roshan Jahan

Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Rajiva Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶5

Vide order dated 19.01.2023, notice was issued to opposite party no. 2 and the notice has been served upon the opposite party no. 2.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned counsel for the State and perused the record.

¶7

The instant revision has been filed with a prayer to allow this revision and set aside the impugned order dated 04.01.2023, passed by Learned Special Judge (POCSO)/ Special Judge, Children Court/Additional Sessions Judge/Court No.11, Lakhimpur Kheri vide Criminal Appeal No. 53 of 2022 and also set aside the impugned order dated 17.11.2022, passed by Juvenila Justice Board, Lakhimpur Kheri vide B.A, No. 118/2022, F.I.R. No.335/2022, U/s 452, 376, 506 I.P.C. & 3/4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 & 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station - Neemgaon, District-Lakhimpur Kheri.

¶8

Learned counsel appearing for the revisionist submits that the revisionist is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the instant matter. He next added that in the FIR, the Posecutrix has herself disclosed her age as 19 years, though as per the medical examination report the age of the prosecutrix is between 15 to 17 years. He added that at the time of the incident, the age of the revisionist was 16 years and some months. Adding his arguments, he submits that the FIR has been lodged after more than one year of the alleged incident and the prosecutrix has stated in the statement under section 161 that there was some affair with the revisionist since last one year. He added that infact, the ingredients of section 376 does not attract in the instant matter and there was consensual sex in between the parties and thereafter due to certain annoyance, the instant FIR has been lodged. He next added that, since there are material discrepancies in the statement of the victim and the FIR was highly delayed and thus, the whole story has been concocted by the informant and thus, demolishes the story of the prosecution.

¶9

He further added that there is no previous criminal antecedent of the revisionist and the guardian of the revisionist undertakes that revisionist will not be involved in any crime/offence in future.

¶10

On the other hand, the counsel appearing for the State has vehemently opposed the contention aforesaid, and submits that there are serious allegations in the FIR against the present applicant for committing rape with minor girl. He next added that the statement under section 164 also supported the version of the prosecution and thus, the present revisionist is not entitled for any relief.

¶11

Considering the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties and after perusal of material on record, it is evident that the statement of the prosecutrix under section 161 demolishes the story of the prosecution. Further the prosecutrix herself has stated that she is 19 years of age. The prosecutrix was in affair with the revisionist, further the FIR is also delayed by one year and no plausible explanations given thereof coupled with the fact that there is no previous antecedent of the revision.

¶12

This court also noted the fact that the explanations which has been given in lodging the FIR are also goes against the prosecution. It has been stated that after the incident has taken place, there was an attempt for compromise in between the parties as the father of the opposite party no. 2 was ready to perform the marriage with the prosecutrix. Further the revisionist has not previous criminal antecedents and thus, he is in judicial custody since 24.09.2022.

¶13

Resultantly, the criminal revision is hereby allowed .

¶14

The impugned Judgment and order dated 04.01.2023, passed by Learned Special Judge (POCSO)/ Special Judge, Children Court/Additional Sessions Judge/Court No.11, Lakhimpur Kheri vide Criminal Appeal No. 53 of 2022 and also set aside the impugned order dated 17.11.2022, passed by Juvenila Justice Board, Lakhimpur Kheri vide B.A, No. 118/2022, F.I.R. No.335/2022, U/s 452, 376, 506 I.P.C. & 3/4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 & 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station - Neemgaon, DistrictLakhimpur Kheri are here by set aside.

¶15

It is directed that the the revisionist be released on bail in aforementioned Case Crime No.335 of 2022 on furnishing bail bond of Rs.20,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of concerned Juvenile Justice Board subject

¶16

to the condition that the brother of the revisionist will take care of his education and betterment and will not allow to indulge him in any criminal activity and will keep constant check on his activities. Both the sureties are directed to be close relatives of the revisionist juvenile.

¶17

Order Date :- 17.2.2023 Mayank

¶18

Digitally signed by :- MAYANK PRATAP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Noore Alam Thru. His Mother Smt. Roshan Jahan v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Noore Alam Thru. His Mother Smt. Roshan Jahan v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sandeep @ Sandeep Lonia Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt., Lko. and 2 Others

Shiv Devi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. U.P. Lko. and Another

Mohd. Saif Khan Vs State of U.P. Prin. Secy. Home, Civil Sectt. Lko. and Others

Ram Prakash Vs State of U.P. and Another

Om Prakash Verma and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Home Deptt.), Lko. and Another

Ram Prakash Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin, Secy. Home, U.P. Civil Sectt. Distt. Lko. and Others