High Court of Chhattisgarh dismissed two revision petitions. It held that an accused who turns major during the continuation of an offence cannot claim juvenile status. It upheld framing of charges under POCSO and IPC against a brother who allegedly obstructed the victim.
Both revision petitions were dismissed.
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
AFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Order Reserved on 10.01.2022
Order Delivered on 01.02.2022
CRR No. 896 of 2021
----Applicant
Versus
---- Respondents
CRR No. 850 of 2021
----Applicant
Versus
---- Respondents
For Applicants Mr. Rajeev Shrivastava, Senior Advocate with Mr. Malay Shrivastava, Mr. Sourabh Sahu and Ms. Isha Jajodiya, Advocates. For State Dr. (Ms.) Veena Nair, Deputy A.G. For Objector Mr. Vinod Kumar Ajay, Advocate.
2
Hon'ble Shri Justice Gautam Chourdiya
C A V Order
CRR No.896 of 2021
CRR No.850 of 2021
3
years but during the continuation of this offence and prior to lodging of the FIR, applicant Abhay Singh Thakur became major whereas the prosecutrix was minor at that time and further, during continuation of this offence, both of them became major.
Allegation against the applicant Ajay Singh Thakur is that as the applicant Abhay Singh Thakur subsequently refused to marry the prosecutrix, on 08.08.2021 when she was going to inform about the act of applicant Abhay Singh Thakur to his mother, the applicant- Ajay Singh Thakur (elder brother of applicant-Abhay Singh Thakur) stopped her, beat her and threatened her of life if she disclosed about the incident to anyone.
4
Vikas Choudhary (surpa) is not applicable to the facts of the present case.
So far as applicant Ajay Singh Thakur is concerned, it is submitted that a bare perusal of the material available with the charge sheet, it is evident that the applicant has not done any act constituting the offence under Section 21 of the POCSO Act because on the date when dispute arose between the prosecutrix and the applicant Ajay Singh Thakur, the prosecutrix was major. Further, there is nothing to show commission of the offence by this applicant making him liable for being charged under Sections 294, 323, 506-Part II and 427 of IPC. The trial Court while framing the aforesaid charges has not applied the judicial mind to the overall material placed before him and, therefore, the impugned order dated 22.10.2021 is liable to be set aside.
5
sexual intercourse. During investigation, the police seized progress report of the prosecutrix of Class- 2nd which bears her date of birth as 05.11.2002. Likewise, as per the certificate-cum-marksheet of applicant Abhay Singh Thakur of High School, his date of birth is 11.12.1999. Thus, it is also undisputed that on the first date of incident i.e. 05.10.2015, both the applicant and the prosecutrix being below the age of 18 years were minor. As per the prosecution case, the prosecutrix was subjected to sexual intercourse by the applicant Abhay Singh Thakur from 05.10.2015 to 27.07.2021. In the matter of Jaspal Singh vs State of Punjab passed in Criminal Revision No.388 of 2014, order dated 06.02.2014, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, considering the fact that the accused committed rape with the prosecutrix from 1996 to 2002 even after he attained the age of majority, keeping in view the ratio of the judgment of Apex Court in the matter of Vimal Chadha vs. Vikas Chaudhary and others passed in Case No.:Appeal (crl.) 966 of 2008, held that for determining the age of the accused with regard to his juvenility, the entire period of commission of offence from 1996 to 2002 as well as the last date 10.03.2002 is relevant. Thus, the High Court upheld the order of the trial Court rejecting the application of the petitioner for declaring him juvenile for the purpose of trial of the offence alleged against him.
6
(supra), this Court is of the opinion that the trial Court has not committed any illegality or perversity in rejecting the application Abhay Singh Thakur under Section 9 (2) whereby he had prayed for trial by the Juvenile Justice Board. When any offence is committed by the Juvenile and during continuation of the offence, the juvenile becomes major, he cannot claim the benefit of juvenility and the doctrine of merger comes into play.
7
offence under this Act is likely to be committed or has knowledge that such an offence has been committed, he shall provide such information to,-
8
giving the information in good faith for the purpose of subsection (1).
21. Punishment for failure to report or record a case .- (1) Any person, who fails to report the commission of an offence under sub-section (1) of section 19 or section 20 or who fails to record such offence under sub-section (2) of section 19 shall be punished with imprisonment of either description which may extend to six months or with fine or with both.
Sd/Gautam Chourdiya Judge
Akhilesh
3 issues framed by the court
Whether an accused who was a minor at the time of the initial offence but became a major during the continuation of the offence can claim benefit of juvenility for trial under the Juvenile Justice Act
Whether framing charges under Section 21 of POCSO and other substantive laws against a brother who allegedly prevented the victim from disclosing the offence constituted perversity or illegality.
Whether the trial Court committed any error in rejecting the application for juvenile trial and framing charges under the said provisions.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Vikas Choudhary vs. State (NCT Delhi)Distinguished¶32
Vikas Choudhary vs. State (NCT Delhi), 2010 8 SCC 508 · Who else cites this
Jaspal Singh vs State of PunjabFollowed¶39
Jaspal Singh vs State of Punjab, Criminal Revision No.388 of 2014
Vimal Chadha vs. Vikas Chaudhary and othersDistinguished¶39
Vimal Chadha vs. Vikas Chaudhary and others, Appeal (crl.) 966 of 2008
9 provisions across 4 enactments
Abhay Singh Thakur
Ajay Singh Thakur
State of Chhattisgarh
ABC
Gautam Chourdiya
Akhilesh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
