Partly allowed

Subodh Kumar v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC21 Nov 2019Cr.Rev./805/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision, the High Court upheld the conviction for rape under Section 376 IPC but modified the Juvenile Justice Act confinement order to a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, dismissing the sentence of three years in the Special Home due to the lapse of 12 years.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner discharged from Special Home liability subject to payment of fine Rs. 10,000/- within 3 months.

Subodh Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Jharkhand HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 805 of 2014

¶2

Subodh Kumar ….. Petitioner

¶3

Versus The State of Jharkhand ….. Opposite Party

¶4

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

¶5

For the Petitioner : Mr. Aashish Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey, A.P.P ---------

¶6

07/Dated: 21/11/2019

¶7

The instant application is directed against the judgment dated 25.02.2014, passed by the learned District & Additional Sessions Judge-II, Godda in Criminal Appeal No.157/12 / 5/14, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner was partly allowed to the extent that while the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Godda vide its enquiry order dated 25.02.2014 has convicted the petitioner for offence under Sections 376 and 366 A of the Indian Penal Code, the learned appellate court has acquitted the petitioner from the charge under Section 366A IPC, however, confirmed the enquiry order with respect to charge under Section 376 IPC, whereby the petitioner was directed to go Special Home for a period of 3 years under Section 15 (1) (G) of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (Herein after to be referred as the Act).

¶8

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there are vital lacuna in the impugned order so much so that investigating officer has not been examined in this case, no FIR or statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C has been exhibited. Further, though the medical report has been exhibited but since the doctor has not been examined, the veracity of the medical report is not proved.

¶9

Even the learned appellate court in para 8 of its judgment has observed that there are lacunas in the enquiry and further observed that the learned Magistrate has not taken pain to accept certain documents which were required

¶10

-2-

¶11

to be exhibited or considered while passing the impugned order.

¶12

The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner has remained in juvenile Special Home for a period of almost 1½ years. He further submits that some relief may be granted by this Court.

¶13

Learned APP appearing for the State supports the impugned orders and submitted that the order passed by the learned appellate court is well discussed and passed relying upon the Rulings of Hon'ble Apex Court and there is no error, whatsoever, in the impugned order.

¶14

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned APP for the State.

¶15

After going through the impugned order including the lower court record and keeping in mind the limited scope of revision jurisdiction, I am not inclined to interfere with the findings of the courts below and as such the judgment of conviction passed by the Juvenile Justice Board and upheld by the learned appellate court with respect to charge under Section 376 IPC is, hereby, confirmed.

¶16

However, so far as order passed under Section 15 of the Act is concerned, it is apparent from record that the incident is of the year 2007 and 12 years have elapsed and the petitioner must have suffered the rigors of litigation for the last 12 years and also remained in Juvenile Special Home for a period of about 1½ years. It is not stated that the petitioner has ever misused the privilege of bail.

¶17

In a situation of this nature, I am of the opinion that no fruitful purpose would be served by sending the accused person back to prison especially when the accused person is in mid of his age and his entire career is ahead, rather interest of justice would be sufficed if the order under Section 15 of the Act is modified in lieu of fine.

¶18

Thus, the order under Section 15 of the Act passed by the Juvenile Justice Board is, hereby, modified to the extent that the petitioner is discharged from going back to prison, subject to the payment of fine of Rs.10,000/-.

¶19

It is made clear that the petitioner shall pay the aforesaid fine of Rs.10,000/- within a period of 3 months from today before the learned Secretary, DLSA, Godda.

¶20

With the aforesaid observations, directions and modification in order under Section 15 of the Act, this revision application is disposed of.

¶21

The petitioner shall be discharged from the liability of his bail bonds, subject to fulfillment of aforesaid condition.

¶22

Let the lower court record be sent back to the Juvenile Justice Board, Godda forthwith.

¶23

Let the copy of this order be communicated to the Juvenile Justice Board, Godda and the Secretary, DLSA, Godda.

¶24

(Deepak Roshan, J.)

¶25

Pramanik/

Subodh Kumar v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Subodh Kumar v. the State of Jharkhand

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

Panchu Sao Vs State of Bihar

Naresh Kumar Gupta Vs State of Jharkhand

Adhikari Garia Vs State of Jharkhand

Haru Paul Vs State of Jharkhand

Sukumar Singh And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand

Kishore Jaiswal And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand