Shashi @ Rahul Patuwa @ Shashi Kumar Tanti, Son of Ram Chandra Prasad @ v. Coram: HON’BLE
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 604 of 2016 ------ Shashi @ Rahul Patuwa @ Shashi Kumar Tanti, Son of Ram Chandra Prasad @ Ram Chandra Patwa, resident of Village – Zima, P.O. & P.S. – Kuru, District – Lohardaga, through his father Ram Chandra Prasad @ Ram Chandra Patwa, Son of Late Ram Swarup Prasad, resident of Village – Zima, P.O. & P.S. – Kuru, District – Lohardaga. The State of Jharkhand .... …. Petitioner .... .... Opp. Party Versus ------ Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA ------ For the Petitioner For the State
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Nilesh Kumar, Advocate Mr. Saurabh Tanti, Advocate. : Mr. Vishwanath Roy, Spl. P.P. ------ ORAL ORDER Order No. 08 / Dated- 09.05.2024 Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The instant criminal revision is directed against the order dated 02.04.2016 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Lohardaga in Cr. Appeal No. 49 of 2015, whereby and whereunder the appeal filed by the juvenile-petitioner has been dismissed, affirming the Enquiry Order dated 23.04.2015 passed by learned Principal Member, Juvenile Justice Board, Civil Court, Lohardaga in G.R. No. 643 of 2011 / E.R. No. 36 of 2015 arising out of Lohardaga P.S. Case No. 192 of 2011, registered for the offence under Section 366 of the I.P.C., whereby and whereunder the juvenile has been held guilty and convicted for the offence under Section 366 of the I.P.C. and sent to Special Home for detention of a period of 3 years. Page 1 of 5 3. Factual matrix giving rise to this revision is that the informant, who is father of the victim, has given written report before the Lohardaga P.S. alleging therein that the victim was a student of Class-VII. It is further alleged that on 12.12.2011, at about 8:00 A.M., she had gone to attend her school and she did not come back home at the usual time i.e. at 4:00 P.M. The informant’s wife made an enquiry and found that the victim had not even gone to her School. Thereafter, the informant was given information by his wife and he reached his house. It is further alleged that on suspicion, he inquired about the whereabouts of one boy Shashi @ Rahul, who used to live on rent in the house of a teacher namely, Vishwanarayan Ram. Thereafter, the informant came to know that two days’ prior, Shashi @ Rahul had left his rented house. It is further alleged that the informant had firm belief that Shashi @ Rahul had enticed and took away his daughter for illegal purpose. 4. On the basis of the written report of the informant, Lohardaga P.S. Case No. 192 of 2011 under Section 366 of I.P.C. was registered against Shashi @ Rahul and the police started investigation of the case. 5. After conclusion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the juvenile Shashi @ Rahul Patuwa under Sections 366A / 376 of the I.P.C. and cognizance of offences under Section 366A / 376 of the I.P.C. was taken against Juvenile. The petitioner was Page 2 of 5 declared Juvenile vide order dated 13.02.2012 and the case record was received in the J.J.B. Lohardaga on 14.02.2012 for enquiry and disposal. 6. On 15.03.2012, the substance of accusation under Section 366 of I.P.C. was explained to the Juvenile, to which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed for enquiry by the Board and the Board after conclusion of Enquiry found the Juvenile guilty for the offence punishable under Section 366 of the I.P.C. and sentenced him to be sent to the Special Home for detention for a period of three years. The said Enquiry Order dated 23.04.2015 challenged under Section 52 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, was confirmed by the appellate court and has been assailed in this revision. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner without touching the merits of the Enquiry Order of concerned Juvenile Justice Board and order of the appellate court has confined himself to the point of quantum of sentence. It is submitted that out of three years detention awarded to the petitioner, he has already undergone four months remand during enquiry from 23.01.2012 to 15.03.2012 and after conviction from 11.08.2016 to 22.09.2016, as such, the petitioner has been adequately punished for the offences committed by him. Under such circumstances, this revision may be allowed or in alternative, the revision may be dismissed subject to modification Page 3 of 5 in the sentence awarded by the learned Juvenile Justice Board, which was affirmed by the learned appellate court to the extent that the petitioner is sentenced to undergo detention for the period already undergone by him. 8. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor have raised no objection as regard to aforesaid contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that on merits, the revision is fit to be dismissed, but as far as modification in sentence is concerned in the factual aspect of the case, appropriate order(s) may be passed. 9. I have gone through the record of the case along with the Enquiry Order passed by the learned Juvenile Justice Board as well as of the appellate court, it appears that there is concurrent finding of both the courts below that the prosecution has been able to prove the guilt of Juvenile for the offence under Section 366 I.P.C. and there is direct evidence against him that he enticed the minor girl and took her away from the custody of her lawful guardian without their consent. The finding of fact of the court below appears to be correct, legal and proper, requiring no interference on merits by way of this revision. 10. So far sentence awarded to the petitioner is concerned admittedly out of three years’ detention, he has sustained substantial Page 4 of 5 part of the detention to the extent of four months during course of enquiry and during pendency of the appeal and this revision. 11. It appears that on the date of alleged commission of crime, petitioner was aged about 17 years and more than 13 years has been passed from the alleged occurrence and now petitioner is 30 years old. The petitioner has sustained agony of trial for the aforesaid period and also served sentence for about four months. 12. Under the aforementioned circumstances in the interest of rehabilitation and reformation of the petitioner, the detention already undergone appears to be sufficient punishment for the offence committed by him. 13. In view of discussions and reasons, this revision is dismissed on merits, but with modification in sentence to the extent mentioned above i.e. petitioner is sentenced to go detention for the period already undergone. 14. Petitioner is on bail, as such, he shall be discharged from the liability of bail bond and sureties shall also be discharged. 15. Let a copy of this judgment along with trial court record be sent to the court concerned for information and needful. Sunil/-NAFR (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) Page 5 of 5