X- Juvenile Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Reserved on 16.09.2025 Delivered on 07.10.2025

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1793 of 2024

X- Juvenile	.....Revisionist(s)
	Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s) Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: Sanjeev Kumar Rai : G.A., Suyigya Kumar Sharma

¶5

Court No. - 46

¶6

HON'BLE SIDDHARTH, J.

¶7

Heard Sri Sanjeev Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the revisionist; learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.

¶8

The present criminal revision has been filed to set and aside the judgement and order dated 19.1.2024 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge/ Special Judge, (POCSO) Act, Court no.1, Muzaffar Nagar, in Juvenile Criminal Appeal No. 56 of 2023 and order dated 24.7.2023 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Muzaffar Nagar in Case Crime No. 286 of 2022, under Section 454, 376(3) I.P.C. and 5/6 POCSO Act, Police Station Nai Mandi, District Muzaffar Nagar.

¶9

The prosecution case, in short, is that on 9.6.2022, when the informant was not in his house and his daughter, aged about 8 years, was alone, the revisionist climbed the wall of house and committed the offence of rape against his minor daughter.

¶10

Investigating Officer collected evidence, which proved the charges levelled against the revisionist and he was charge-sheeted for committing the offences under Sections 376, 452 IPC and 3/4 POCSO Act.

¶11

At the time of incident, age of the revisionist was found to be 12 years, 3 months and 9 days and therefore the trial commenced before the Juvenile Justice Board, Muzaffar Nagar. The revisionist denied charges and sought trial.

¶12

CRLR No. 1793 of 2024

¶13

2

¶14

Before the Board, father of the victim was examined as PW-1; Savej was examined as PW-2; victim was examined as PW-3; the doctor was examined as PW-4 and Sub Inspector/ Investigating Officer was examined as PW-5.

¶15

The statement of revisionist was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein he claimed false implication in this case.

¶16

The Board, after considering the evidence on record and specially the medical report of the victim, found that the commission of alleged crime against the victim conclusively proved since in the pathological report of the child victim, traces of spermatozoa were found. The doctor, PW-4, did not ruled out the possibility of commission of offence of rape against the minor victim. The Juvenile Justice Board considered the oral and documentary evidence recorded and also the relevant case laws and found that charges levelled against the revisionist were found to be proved and he was convicted for committing the offences under Sections 454, 376(3) I.P.C. and 5/6 POCSO Act. Considering his age of 12 years, 3 months and 9 days, his incarceration in Child Protection Home, Muzaffar Nagar, for 13 months, he was sentenced to 12 months incarceration. Further, custody in District Child Protection Home for 12 months was directed by Board, vide judgement and order dated 24.7.2023.

¶17

A Criminal Appeal No. 56 of 2023 was preferred by the revisionist before the Children's Court, which was dismissed. The appellate court has re-considered oral and documentary evidence on record and confirmed the sentence awarded by the Board to the revisionist by order dated 19.1.2024.

¶18

Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that both the courts below have not considered the evidence on record in proper prospective. The revisionist was only aged 12 years, 3 months and 9 days at the time of alleged incident and was falsely implicated in this case. The medical report of the victim does not proves that the alleged offence of rape was committed against her. He has further submitted that the revisionist is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case.

¶19

Learned AGA has opposed the submissions made by learned counsel

¶20

CRLR No. 1793 of 2024

¶21

3

¶22

for the revisionist and submitted that statement of child victim and her medical report are sufficient to justify the implication, trial and punishment of the revisionist. He was the only accused and there was sufficient evidence against him, which has proved the commission of alleged offences against him beyond reasonable about.

¶23

This Court has perused the findings recorded by both the courts below which are based on the perusal of the evidence on record. There is nothing in the statements of the witnesses and specially the child witness (victim), which may raise any doubt about the commission of alleged offence committed by revisionist. The learned counsel for the revisionist could not point out any perversity in the findings recorded by the courts below.

¶24