Dismissed

Surendra Singh v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC24 Jul 2023CRLR/1755/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision under the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, the Allahabad High Court dismissed Surendra Singh's appeal against a juvenile criminal appeal. The court found no illegality in the appellate court's order despite submissions regarding the victims' relationship, co-accused influence, and alleged police pressure.

What did the court decide?

The criminal revision was dismissed without admitting the appeal against the impugned judgment.

Surendra Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:147276

¶2

Court No. - 80

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1755 of 2023

¶4

Revisionist :- Surendra Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Ajay Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sunil Kumar

¶5

Hon'ble Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned counsel for the opposite party alongwith and A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.

¶7

The present criminal revision has been preferred by the revisionist under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act-2015 (hereinafter referred to as "J.J. Act, 2015) to allow the present revision and set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 19.01.2023 passed by learned Special Judge, POCSO Act, Mainpuri in Juvenile Criminal Appeal No.45 of 2022 arising out of Case Crime No.230 of 2022, under Sections 363, 366, 376(3) I.P.C. & Section 3/4(2) POCSO Act, Police Station Karhal, District Mainpuri, in the interest of justice.

¶8

It is submitted that in this case the delinquent/applicant was aged about 16 years, 6 months and was studying in Class-12th at the time of alleged incident and the victim was also a student of the same class and both were classmates. Further submitted that coaccused Gopal is hardened criminal and with his help present delinquent enticed away the victim and after release on bail the delinquent will come in his association and also tend to commit such offences. This fact was not taken into consideration by the learned appellate court while allowing the appeal. Further submitted that the District Probation Officer also did not disclose this fact in his report. It is further submitted that the father and tau of the delinquent are working as Homeguard in the same police station that is why the statement of the victim recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. by the I.O. was under their influence and complicity of the present delinquent was not shown properly. Even, at the time, statement of the victim u/s 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded by the learned Magistrate, she was under pressure of police that was the reason liability was fastened on the present delinquent but not on coaccused. It is also submitted that in case delinquent is released on

¶9

bail, he will repeat the similar offence with the help of aforesaid co-accused, therefore, the order passed by learned appellate court cannot be said to be in conformity with law and is liable to be set aside.

¶10

Learned counsel for the opposite party as well as learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer as aforesaid and urged that in this case the delinquent and the victim both were students in the same class of the same school and there was affair between both of them. Further urged that there arose dispute at home that was the reason victim went away but present F.I.R. was lodged by her father with false allegations against him. In the statement as recorded by learned Magistrate the victim specifically made accusation against the coaccused Gopal and not against the present delinquent. She categorically stated that though co-accused Gopal committed offence with her but in collusion with police he tried to implicate the present delinquent. It shows that the delinquent was innocent. The report as submitted by District Probation Officer is also not against the interest of the present delinquent and no any possibility of the delinquent to come in association with other criminals was revealed in his report. All these facts were taken into consideration while passing order in appeal by the learned appellate court, therefore, there is no any illegality or impropriety in the order in question but this criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed.

¶11

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submission made by learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned A.G.A., perusal of material on record, the provisions as contained u/s 12 of Juvenile Justice Act, the statement as deposed by the victim herself before the learned Magistrate u/s 164 Cr.P.C., there appears no any illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the appellate court but this revision being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed.

¶12

Accordingly, the present criminal revision is, hereby, dismissed.

¶13

Order Date :- 24.7.2023 Ashok Gupta

¶14

Digitally signed by :- ASHOK KUMAR GUPTA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Surendra Singh v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surendra Singh v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vyas Kumar Sharma Minor Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shammi Chauhan Vs the State of U.P. and 3 Others

X Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

X (Minor) Vs State of U.P.and 3 Others

X (Minor) Vs State of Up and Another

Ashok Kumar @ Tt Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others