Allowed

Devendra Kumar Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC28 Jul 2023CRR/145/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside the Special Court's order dismissing an application to transfer a respondent to the Juvenile Justice Board. The Court remanded the matter for an enquiry into the applicant's age to determine if he was a minor at the time of the alleged offences on 02.08.2021.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 05.11.2022 is set aside. Matter remanded to Trial Court for age enquiry. If found minor, case transferred to Juvenile Justice Board.

Devendra Kumar Sahu Vs State of… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Chhattisgarh HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

CRR No.145 of 2023

¶5

Order reserved on : 01.05.2023

¶6

Order delivered on : 28.07.2023

¶7

Devendra Kumar Sahu S/o Hemlal Sahu, Aged About 18 Years and 3 months, R/o Pawani House No.348, Near Bus Stand, P.S. Bilaigarh District Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh

¶8

---- Applicant

¶9

Versus

¶10

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Gurur, District : Balod, Chhattisgarh

¶11

---- Respondent

¶12

For Applicant Mr. Uttam Pandey, Advocate For Respondent Mr. Afroj Khan, PL

¶13

Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey

¶14

C A V Order

¶15

The present revision has been preferred by the applicant against the order dated 05.11.2022 passed by the learned Special Judge (POCSO) Balod in Special Session Case No.80/2021, whereby the learned Session Judge has dismissed the application filed by the applicant under Section 27 of CrPC.

¶16

Brief facts of the case are that the applicant was prosecuted and a charge sheet was filed against him before the learned Trial Court for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376 (2) (n), 376 (3) & 313 of IPC and Section 5 (Tha)/6 of the POCSO Act, 2012. The applicant filed application under Section 27 of

¶17

¶18

CrPC before the Trial Court on the ground that as per prosecution, the first incident of rape took place on 02.08.2021 and on that day, the applicant was minor and he had not completed 18 years of age, as such his case be transferred to the Juvenile Justice Board. The learned Trial Court after hearing the parties dismissed the application of the applicant, hence this revision has been filed by the applicant.

¶19

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that as per birth certificate of applicant, his date of birth is 30.10.2003 and as per prosecution, the first incident took place on 02.08.2021, which clearly shows that on this date, the petitioner was 17 years, 9 months and 2 days old. Thus, as per prosecution’s own case, the applicant was minor at the time of incident, as such it was mandatory on the part of the concerned Judge to send the juvenile to Special Home and in terms of Section 7 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, a procedure laid down for determination of juvenality act has been provided, wherein such claim may be raised at any stage of trial and it shall be determined in terms of the provision contained in the Act, 2000, therefore, the learned Trial Court should have sent the application of the applicant before the Juvenile Justice Board for age determination. Reliance has been placed on the judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of Devilal and others vs State of Madhya Pradesh , reported in (2021) 5 SCC 292, Manmohan vs State of Madhya Pradesh ,

¶20

¶21

reported in (2020) 14 SCC 574, Satya Deo alias Bhoorey vs State of Uttar Pradesh , reported in (2020) 10 SCC 555 and the judgment rendered by this Court in the matter of Narendra and another vs State of Madhya Pradesh , passed in CRA No.856/1996, order dated 28.10.2013.

¶22

Learned State counsel supports the impugned order.

¶23

The notice was sent to the prosecutrix through her guardian and on 11.04.2023, the prosecutrix and her father appeared before this Court through Video Conferencing via DLSA, Baloda Bazar and raised objection in granting bail to the applicant.

¶24

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶25

The applicant filed his birth certificate and as per birth certificate, the date of birth of the applicant is 30.10.2003. The learned Trial court found that as per school register, the applicant’s date of birth is 28.04.2003 so he was major at the date of incident and dismissed the application of the applicant.

¶26

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Devilal (supra) held in para 19 under:-

¶27

“19. It is thus clear that, even if it is held that Amrat Ram was guilty of the offence with which he was charged, the matter must be remitted to the jurisdictional Juvenile Justice Board for determining appropriate quantum of fine that should be levied on Amrat Ram.”

¶28

In the case in hand also, the birth certificate was filed by the applicant before the Trial Court, but the learned Trial Court only

¶29

¶30

on the ground that the birth certificate was issued on 14.10.2022 itself dismissed the application of the applicant, which is illegal. The learned Trial Court had to determine as to whether at the date of incident, the petitioner was juvenile or not and then should have decided the application, but it is clear from the order sheet that no opportunity was given to the petitioner in this regard and his application was dismissed.

¶31

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the order dated 05.11.2022 is hereby set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Trial Court to conduct an enquiry as to the age of the applicant.

¶32

The parties are directed to file additional oral and documentary evidence before the Trial Court and after taking cognizance of their evidence and hearing the parties and based on the enquiry report, the Trial Court shall pass order regarding the age of the applicant. If on the initial date of incident, the applicant is found to be below the age of 18 years, the case registered against him be transferred to the concerned Juvenile Justice Board for trial.

¶33

The revision is allowed in part.

¶34

Sd/-

¶35

Rajani Dubey Judge

¶36

Nirala

Devendra Kumar Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Devendra Kumar Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Noor Begum @ Baby Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Amar Sai, Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Nand Kumari Adil Vs Union of India

Dattatrey Mandir Trust Vs Sanjeev Mishra

Smt. Dhaneshwari Nayak and Another Vs Tilakram Banjara

Smt. Narmada Bai Vs Hans Das