Remanded

Dilip Sahu Alias Chunmun Sahu v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC19 Sept 2023Cr.Rev./552/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Revision challenging an order rejecting a petition to declare the petitioner a juvenile. The High Court set aside the impugned order in the interest of justice and remitted the matter for afresh consideration with opportunities to examine the petitioner and relevant documents. Case is 14 paragraphs and simple so quality is ok.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; matter remitted for afresh decision after affording opportunity to parties; I.A. No.8022 allowed.

Dilip Sahu Alias Chunmun Sahu Vs the State of… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

Cr. Revision No. 552 of 2021

¶4

Dilip Sahu @ Chunmun Sahu …… Petitioner Versus 1.The State of Jharkhand 2.Etwa Bhagat ……. Opp. Parties ---------

¶5

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD

¶6

---------- For the Petitioner : Mr. K.S. Nanda, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, APP For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Tarun Kumar, Advocate ---------

¶7

13/19.09.2023 This Criminal Revision Application has been filed on behalf of the petitioner challenging the order dated 24.05.2018 passed in Sessions Trial No.104/2014 (arising out of Bero P.S. Case No.94/2013) by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-VII, Ranchi by which the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-VII, Ranchi has rejected the claim of the petitioner for declaring him as a „Juvenile‟.

¶8

2. As per F.I.R. it is alleged that the dead body of a woman was found in the well situated in the land of one Jeetu Bhagat.

¶9

3. Heard Mr. K.S. Nanda, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, learned Spl.PP for the State and Mr. Tarun Kumar, learned counsel for the O.P. No.2.

¶10

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned Court below is illegal, arbitrary and not sustainable in the eye of law. It is submitted that the petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. However, he was arrested on mere suspicion and on the basis of his confessional statement, he was made an accused and charge sheet has been submitted against him and he is facing trial. It is submitted that petitioner is in custody for around more than eight years. It is submitted that the petitioner has filed an application under

¶11

¶12

section 7-A of Juvenile Justice Act for declaring him „Juvenile‟. However, the learned Court below has rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground that there is some overwriting in the column of „Age as per English Calendar‟ although the date of Birth is 28.01.1996 and the occurrence has taken place in the year 2013 and the petitioner was a juvenile on the date of occurrence. However, the learned Court below has illegally rejected the claim of the petitioner for declaring him as juvenile merely on the basis of overwriting in the column of „Age as per English Calendar‟ and hence the impugned order may be set aside and the instant Criminal Revision Application may be allowed.

¶13

5. On the other hand, Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, learned Spl.PP assisted by Mr. Tarun Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Informant-O.P.No.2 has submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned Court below is fit and proper and no interference is required. It is submitted that the petitioner, being the main assailant, has been arrested and has admitted his guilt during his confessional statements for committing the murder of the woman. It is submitted that the Register does not disclose the name of the school and there is some overwriting in the column of „Age as per English Calendar‟ and as such no illegality has been committed by the learned Court below by rejecting the claim of the petitioner for declaring him „Juvenile‟.

¶14

It is submitted that the Enquiry Witnesses i.e. E.W-1, E.W-2 and E.W-3 namely Priety Sahu, Shiv Pujan Puri and Upendra Kumar are interested witnesses and as such the learned Court below has rightly rejected the claim of the petitioner and hence this Criminal Revision Application is devoid of merit and hence this Cr. Revision No.552 of 2021 may be dismissed.

¶15

Perused the Lower Court Record of this case and also

¶16

¶17

the Original School Register produced before this Court and considered the submission of both the sides.

¶18

It transpires from the Lower Court Records that the petitioner has examined three witnesses i.e. E.W-1, E.W-2 and E.W-3 namely Priety Sahu, Shiv Pujan Puri and Upendra Kumar in support of his case and who have stated that the date of birth of the petitioner in the Admission Register is 28.01.1996 and E.W-3 is the Teacher of the said school. Although the register is torned and it does not disclose the name of the school but there is seal of Principal, Rajyakrit Madhya Vidyalaya Mahadeo Chengri (illegible), Bharno, Gumla.

¶19

From perusal of the Original School Register, it would appear that there is no overwriting in the column of date of birth and the date of birth is mentioned as 28.01.1996. However, in the column of English Calendar there is slight overwriting. It appears that the Register has been signed by the Bearer of the seal of the school Rajyakrit Madhya Vidyalaya Mahadeo Chengri, Bharno, Gumla (sic.). It also appears that there are two columns and in one column the date of birth i.e. date, month and year has been mentioned and in another column the age as per English Calendar has been mentioned.

¶20

From perusal of the page 46 of the School Register, wherein the name of the petitioner-Dilip Sahu @ Chunmun Sahu is mentioned at serial no.79, it would appear that in the column of date of birth 28.01.96 is mentioned as date of birth. However, in the column of age as per English Calendar, overwriting shows as “06.01.28”.

¶21

However, it appears that the learned Court below has not considered the above aspects.

¶22

Under the circumstances, the order dated 24.05.2018 passed by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-VII, Ranchi in Sessions Trial No.104/2014 (arising out of Bero P.S.

¶23

¶24

Case No.94/2013) is set aside in the interest of justice and the matter is remitted to the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-VII, Ranchi or his Successor Court to decide the case afresh in accordance with law after giving an opportunity to the petitioner and the State and the informant in the light of the State Admission Register produced before him by the Teacher concerned and also as per the Medical Report.

¶25

Thus, Cr. Revision No.552 of 2021 is allowed with the observations as mentioned above and stands disposed of. 13. Let the Original School Register be sent to the school concerned i.e. Rajyakrit Madhya Vidyalaya Mahadeo Chengri, Bahrno, Gumla at once by the office.

¶26

I.A. No.8022 of 2023 is also allowed and stands disposed of as not pressed for.

¶27

(Sanjay Prasad, J.)

¶28

Saket/

Dilip Sahu Alias Chunmun Sahu v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dilip Sahu Alias Chunmun Sahu 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kausar Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand

Subhash Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Baraik Jai Kishore Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Mirtunjay Kumar Roy Alias Sonu Vs Rakhi Devi

Raj Kishore Prasad Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ramjeet Kisku Thr His Father and Natural Guardian Sri Shibdhan Kisku Vs the State of Jharkhand