High Court
Case Details
Court No. - 91 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 752 of 2022 Revisionist :- Juvenile X Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Sunil Vashisth,Mayank Singh,Ramesh Kumar Sahu Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Manvendra Nath Singh Hon'ble Mrs. Jyotsna Sharma,J.
Legal Reasoning
1. Heard Sri Mayank Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri O.P. Mishra, learned AGA for the State of U.P. None responds for the respondent no. 2. 2. This criminal revision has been filed challenging the order dated 16.11.2021 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Agra and further challenging the order dated 18.01.2022 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, (POCSO Act), Court No. 29, Agra in Criminal Appeal No. 106/2021 affirming the order of the Juvenile Justice Board declining bail to the juvenile in criminal case arising out of Case Crime No. 0230 of 2021 under Section 302, 34 IPC, Police Station Khandauli, District-Agra. 3. As per prosecution case, son of the informant Sumit aged about 32 years was shot dead on 31.07.2021 at about 5.30 in the evening on an agricultural field by one Bhola @ Sukhbir, Somveer Singh, Chotu and the present juvenile; the FIR was lodged by father of the deceased; it is mentioned in the FIR that one of them Sukhbir was having a double barrel gun and the present juvenile was holding a country made pistol; the deceased was immediately brought to S.N. Medical College for medical aid but he succumbed to his injuries; the incident was witnessed by one Upendra and one Adesh; the statements of the witnesses were recorded; the present revisionist-juvenile was arrested and from his pointing out, the country made pistol 0.315 bore (the weapon of offence) was recovered from a pond. According to prosecution case, this was the firearm by which the present juvenile fired at the deceased injuring him fataly; the postmortem was conducted and after rest of the investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against all the accused persons including the present juvenile under Sections 302 and 34 IPC; finding the present revisionist a minor, he was produced before the Juvenile Justice Board; in an age determination inquiry, he was found 17 years 11 months; his application for bail was dismissed by order dated 05.10.2021 and the appeal filed on his behalf challenging the above order also came to be dismissed by an order dated 18.01.2022 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, (POCSO Act), Court No. 29, Agra. Now the juvenile through his mother and natural guardian is before this Court under Section 102 of the J.J. Act, 2015. 4. It is contended on behalf of the revisionist that the impugned orders have been passed ignoring the principles of law, as applicable in the matters relating to bail to the juvenile and further ignoring the mandate of Section 12(1) of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015; the courts below have passed the impugned orders in an arbitrary manner and have drawn conclusions without having sufficient material before them; besides above, some relevant facts have been altogether ignored by the courts below; the statementd given by the eye-witnesses namely Adesh and Upendra are different, inasmuch as the FIR says that Bhola @ Sukhbir was having a double barrel gun in his hand, however, the witnesses have stated that he was having a 'ballam' in his hand. 5. In reply to the argument from the side of the revisionist, learned AGA pointed out that as far as the role of present juvenile is concerned, the FIR as well as the statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. are similar; the witnesses said that it was he who held a country- made firearm and it was him, who fired a shot towards Sumit and he died of that very firearm injury. The postmortem report also says that a firearm entry wound at the back of scapula and firearm exit wound at the right of mandible below the chin was found, the trachea was lacerated and he died of gun shot wound. 6. Another argument which has been stressed by the side of the revisionist is that the juvenile has no criminal history; the social investigation report does not show that he had any criminal tendencies. Therefore, as per the arguments from the side of the revisionist his continued detention in a juvenile protection home is not justifiable. 7. Further it is contended that the rest of the charge-sheeted persons have been granted bail, therefore, he too deserved liberty of bail. Rebutting the above argument, this fact has been placed before me by learned A.G.A. that the others had no direct role in the murder of the deceased, the deceased died of a firearm injury caused by him and as per all the evidence collected during the investigation, the deceased had no other injury except that of firearm. Therefore, no benefit of such argument may be given to the revisionist. 8. In Criminal Revision No.1000 of 2022 (Xx Minor vs. State of U.P. and Another) decided by this Court on 24.11.2022, the Court had an opportunity to consider the opinion given in Idris (Minor) vs. State of U.P. and Others, (2018) 3 JIC 287, as to utility of the nature/seriousness of the allegations and the evidence collected to indicate the complicity of the juvenile while considering the bail application under the provisions of Juvenile Justice Act, 2015. The Court expressed the opinion that the phrase "the ends of justice be defeated" would refer somewhat to the merits of the case. The Court quoted from another case decided on 12.10.2022 in Criminal Revision No.1195 of 2022 ('X' Minor vs. State of U.P.), wherein it was said that in the background of general principle of best interest of the child which underlined all the matters to be dealt within the provisions of Juvenile Justice Act, 2015; the bail can definitely be denied where there are circumstances to arrive at a conclusion that it should be declined because of the fact that the juvenile may not get such conducive atmosphere as may be needed for his own welfare and betterment, if released to his family or parents. 9. It appears that the appellate court while dealing with the matter of bail to the juvenile gave importance to the opinion that in case he is released on bail, he will fall back in the some environs from where he had come and from which he needed to be protected. It was taken note of by appellate court that the firearm which was used in this case of murder was concealed by the juvenile in a planned manner by the side of the pond to escape detection. On the basis of recovery of weapon of offence from its hiding place, the appellate Court drew an opinion that the juvenile was mature enough to understand the nature and consequences of his act. In nutshell the facts and circumstances of the case were deliberated upon. 10. In Criminal Revision No.1000 of 2022 (Xx Minor vs. State of U.P. and Another) (supra), this Court observed as below:- "The question arises is how far the facts and circumstances mentioned/observed by the Juvenile Justice Board/Appellate Court may justify refusal of bail. In other words, whether the aforesaid facts may form an edifice to bring this case within the restrictive confines of III part of proviso to Section- 12(1) of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 for declining bail? Yet in other words- whether and if yes, to what extent the nature of the offence and merits of the case may be of utility in matters of bail to juvenile considering settled legal position that ordinarily the nature of offence and the merits of a case are not to be seen. Definitely, no separate inquiry is contemplated by the legislature for the purpose of application of this part of law, i.e., III part of proviso to Section-12(1) of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015. The Court is not supposed to look for any material outside and is to depend obviously on prosecution paper and social investigation report as ordinarily no other material is available. This takes us back to the contours of the case (as reflected from prosecution paper) and individual circumstances of juvenile as reflected from social investigation report. And therefore, we traverse back to reach from where we started. And cannot but agree with the opinion of the court that nature of the case, and the merits thereof remain seminal and are in noway inconsequential, unmeaning or insignificant." 11. In this case, the evidence suggested that the murder was committed in a planned manner. It was preceded by an altercation between two sides over some disagreement as to fisheries; after that tussle between the two sides, the juvenile came back home and took out a firearm from his house and fired on the informant's son. In my view, in this case institutional custody is preferable over family custody to keep him under strict supervision and to provide him counseling by professional as may be provided under the provisions of the act and rules not only for his own betterment and positive growth into an adult but also to take care of demands of justice of victim's side. In my view, the orders of the Juvenile Justice Board and the appellate court need no interference in exercise of revisional powers of this Court.
Decision
12. In view of the above, the revision is dismissed. 13. The trial court shall not be influenced by any observation made in this order. 14. Copy of this order be certified to the Juvenile Justice Board/court concerned immediately. Order Date :- 13.12.2022 Vik/- Digitally signed by :- VIKRAM GUPTA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad