Revisionist accused of rape on a Minor girl, granted bail after 4 years: Allahabad HC
The Allahabad High Court recently, allowed the revision petition by a revisionist/juvenile serving jail term for past four years for committing the offence of Rape on a minor girl.
The Single Bench of Justice Mrs. Saroj Yadav while setting aside the order passed by the Juvenile Justice Board and the judgement passed by the Appellate Court observed that,
“Considering the above facts and circumstances and the settled position of law as well as the statement made by the victim wherein she has stated that this revisionist/juvenile did not commit rape on her, the order of Juvenile Justice Board and the judgment of the appellate court are not sustainable.”
Factual Matrix –
The present criminal revision has been preferred by the revisionist/juvenile Takla @ Dharmeshwar through his mother Smt. Sushila Devi, under Section 102 of The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 against the judgement dated 28.11.2017 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Sitapur ias well as order dated 10.10.2017 passed by Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Sitapur i arising out of Crime, under Section 376B Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2 2012 (in short "POCSO Act"), Police Station Manpur, District Sitapur.
According to the facts of the present case around 1am the grand-daughter of the complainant aged about 5 years went to watch some dance function that was going on in the marriage procession in front of their house. Later, one unknown person came there and took the girl away near the pond situated in the village and committed rape on her. The investigation was made and during the course of investigation, the name of the revisionist and one other accused came into light.
Subsequently, charge sheet was submitted in the Court. The Court concerned took cognizance of the matter. The revisionist claimed juvenility and he was declared juvenile by the Juvenile Justice Board, Sitapur vide order dated 21.09.2017. Thereafter, the revisionist/juvenile moved bail application before the Juvenile Justice Board, Sitapur and there the application was rejected vide order dated 10.10.2017. Against that order an appeal was preferred under Section 101 of the Act of 2015 and that too was dismissed by the Appellate Court vide judgment and order dated 28.11.2017.
Therefore, being aggrieved with the said order/judgment, the revisionist/juvenile preferred the present revision.
Contentions –
The Learned counsel for the revisionist/juvenile submitted that, revisionist is in jail since last four years. He was declared juvenile by the Juvenile Justice Board, Sitapur vide order dated 21.09.2017.
“He was not named in the first information report. During the course of investigation, police implicated him on the basis of the statement made by the complainant, wherein she stated before the Investigating Officer that one Lallu Ram and Ram Nath told her that they both saw that Daroga @ Surjeet took the victim away forcibly and Takla @ Dharmeshwar was also there,” counsel for revisionist.
He further submitted that the victim in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has mentioned that she was picked up by Surjeet and Takla and Surjeet committed rape on her but she said nothing about the commission of rape by revisionist/juvenile-Takla.
In the present matter, even if it is presumed that juvenile has committed a crime, he cannot be kept in protection home for more than three years. The revisionist/juvenile already has spent about four years in judicial custody, stated Counsel
The Learned A.G.A. countered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the revisionist and submitted that revisionist/juvenile committed rape on an innocent child aged about five years.
“Medical report of the victim shows brutality in committing the crime. Doctor has noted that " There are signs suggestive of recent use of force/forceful penetration of vagina/anus" so the revision of the juvenile should be dismissed,” asserted A.G.A.
Taking into account the factual matrix and contentions made by the counsels in the present case, the Bench observed that,
“It is undisputed that revisionist/juvenile is in judicial custody for a period of about four years. There is a report of Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Sitapur dated 15.07.2019 disclosing that the case of the juvenile has been transferred under Section18(3) of the Act of 2015 to POCSO Court/Additional Sessions Judge, Sitapur for trial. It means that the trial of the revisionist is being conducted as an adult.In such situation, the revisionist is not entitled for the benefit of provisions under Section 18(g) of the Act of 2015.
As per the report of District Probation Officer, Sitapur, the age of revisionist/ juvenile was found 17 years and 9 months. About four years have passed, since then, so the revisionist/juvenile now has turned major aged about 21 years and some months.”
“The juvenile (Takla @ Dharmeshwar) shall be released on bail in Case Crime No.100/2017 (supra). It is pertinent to mention here, since the revisionist has turned an adult and of age more than 21 years, he shall be released upon furnishing a personal bond himself and two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court concerned. Out of two sureties, one shall be mother/father or close relative of the revisionist,” noted the Bench.
[Case Title - Takla @ Dharmeshwar (Minor) Thru. Mother Smt.Sushila Devi v. State Of U.P]