State Of U.P. And Anr v. Party

: Amarendra Mani, Brij Raj Singh, Mahendra Kumar Yadav, Santosh Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Court No. - 46 HON'BLE SIDDHARTH, J.

1. Heard Sri Mahendra Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the revisionist; learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent and perused the material on record.

2. The present criminal revision has been filed to set and aside the judgement and order dated 23.4.2018 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/ Fast Track Court no.2, Kushinagar, in Misc. Case no.352 of 2017 in Sessions Trial No.76 of 2012, dismissing the application 3(A) of the revisionsit under Section 9(2) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, Police Station Savrahi, District Kushinagar.

3. An application was made under Section 9(2) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, before the Sessions Court by the date of that on 27.12.2010, incident, when revisionist stating informant/victim was studying in Class IXth, the revisionist committed the offence of rape against her. She stated during cross-examination in the trial that she passed Class IXth in 2007 and Class Xth in 2008. Therefore the incident in dispute took place in the year 2007. It is admitted fact that the date of birth of the revisionist is 10.7.1992. Therefore in the year 2007, he was 15 years of age and comes within the definition of juvenile. Learned counsel for the State opposed the application made by the revisionist on the 2 CRLR No. 1826 of 2018 ground that there is no documentary evidence on record, which proves that the revisionist was juvenile at the time of commission of alleged offence and prayed that the application of the revisionist deserves to be dismissed.

4. CW-1, Head Master of Gayatri Mata Balika Inter College, Lakshiya, stated that he is working as Head Master in the institution for last two years. On 13.7.2005, revisionist was admitted in his school. Earlier he studied in Pate Memorial Inter College Tamkuhiraj and after passing Class VIIIth came to his school. His date of birth is 10.7.1992 in the school register. Transfer Certificate was issued by the then Head Master on 20.7.2007 and he proved his handwriting and signature on the transfer certificate. He produced the original T.C. Register before the court. It was admitted by CW-1 that revisionist appeared in Class Xth examination near 2007 and he filed the photocopy of duly certified cross list. Original cross list was also produced before the court. The Sessions Court found that the date of birth of the revisionist recorded in his school is 10.7.1992. It further found that the informant gave an application before the police station on 9.1.2011 alleging that on 27.12.2010 at about 9:30 a.m. the revisionist beated victim/informant and committed the offence of rape and therefore Case Crime No.13/2011 under Section 376 IPC was registered against the revisionist and after submission of charge-sheet, trial is proceeding.

5. The court found that right from the FIR, two dates of incidents have been stated by the victim during the trial. She has also admitted that incident of causing her beating and the incident of commission of offence of rape are two incidents. The incident of causing her beating is dated 27.12.2010 while incident of rape was committed in the year 2007. Therefore two incidents were caused during the interval of three years by the revisionist. The court found that both the incidents were caused in single relationship. The court held that all the incidents were committed in same relationship between the revisionist and the victim. It held that the last incident took place on

27.12.2010 regarding which the FIR was lodged on 9.1.2011. Sessions Court found that on the basis of date of birth 10.7.1992 of the revisionist, on the date of incident dated 27.12.2010, he was above 18 years of age and therefore it cannot be held that he was below 18 years of age at the time of incident and deserves to be tried as juvenile. 3 CRLR No. 1826 of 2018

6. Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that court below has misread the evidence on record. The first incident of rape of victim took place in the year 2007 and therefore on the date of first incident, the revisionist was minor and Sessions court has mixed the incident of 2007 with the incident mentioned in the FIR dated 27.12.2010 and refused to declare the revisionist as juvenile without considering that he was juvenile on the first date of incident in the year 2006-2007.

7. Learned AGA has opposed the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the revisionist.

8. After hearing the rival contentions, this Court finds that in the FIR dated

9.1.2011, there is only mention of incident dated 27.12.2010. There is no mention in the FIR about the incident dated 2006-2007. However in her statement before the trial court, the victim has admitted that in the year 2007, she was studying in Class IXth. It is also admitted in the FIR that the revisionist for the first time committed the alleged offence of rape against the victim when she was studying in Class IXth. Thereafter it appears that he entered into physical relationship/ committed the offence of rape against the victim number of times; made her obscene photographs; blackmailed her on the basis of the same, got her pregnancy aborted and beated her, but the FIR was lodged only when she was beated by revisionist on 27.12.2010 at 9:30 a.m. and he threw acid on her face.

9. This Court further finds that implication of the revisionist has been made under Sections 312, 313, 323, 506, 376 IPC and 3/6 Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986. Going by the statement of the victim before the court, offene of rape was committed by the revisionist against her, when she was studying in Class IXth in the year 2007. Therefore on the date, when the cause of action for his trial under Section 376 IPC arose, the revisionist was clearly about below 15 years of age. It is not the case that the trial of the revisionist is proceeding under Sections 323 and 506 IPC only. The cause of action for trial under Section 376 IPC arose in the year 2007 and since the trial is proceedings under all the sections simultaneously, it is clear that on the fist date of incident of rape, which took place in the year 2007, the revisionist aged about 15 years only. The other offences alleged are not triable as heinous offence and therefore the age of the revisionist at 4 CRLR No. 1826 of 2018 the time of commission of alleged offence of rape against the victim/ informant was relevant and on that date, revisionist was not aged above 18 years as wrongly held by the Sessions Court.

10. Accordingly the order dated 23.4.2018 passed by the Sessions Court is hereby set aside.

11. The above noted criminal revision is allowed.

12. The revisionist is held to be juvenile aged between 15-16 years. He shall be tried accordingly.

13. Office is directed to return the trial court record. October 14, 2025 Ruchi Agrahari (Siddharth,J.) RUCHI AGRAHARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

: Amarendra Mani, Brij Raj Singh, Mahendra Kumar Yadav, Santosh Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Court No. - 46 HON'BLE SIDDHARTH, J.

1. Heard Sri Mahendra Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the revisionist; learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent and perused the material on record.

2. The present criminal revision has been filed to set and aside the judgement and order dated 23.4.2018 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/ Fast Track Court no.2, Kushinagar, in Misc. Case no.352 of 2017 in Sessions Trial No.76 of 2012, dismissing the application 3(A) of the revisionsit under Section 9(2) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, Police Station Savrahi, District Kushinagar.

3. An application was made under Section 9(2) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, before the Sessions Court by the date of that on 27.12.2010, incident, when revisionist stating informant/victim was studying in Class IXth, the revisionist committed the offence of rape against her. She stated during cross-examination in the trial that she passed Class IXth in 2007 and Class Xth in 2008. Therefore the incident in dispute took place in the year 2007. It is admitted fact that the date of birth of the revisionist is 10.7.1992. Therefore in the year 2007, he was 15 years of age and comes within the definition of juvenile. Learned counsel for the State opposed the application made by the revisionist on the 2 CRLR No. 1826 of 2018 ground that there is no documentary evidence on record, which proves that the revisionist was juvenile at the time of commission of alleged offence and prayed that the application of the revisionist deserves to be dismissed.

4. CW-1, Head Master of Gayatri Mata Balika Inter College, Lakshiya, stated that he is working as Head Master in the institution for last two years. On 13.7.2005, revisionist was admitted in his school. Earlier he studied in Pate Memorial Inter College Tamkuhiraj and after passing Class VIIIth came to his school. His date of birth is 10.7.1992 in the school register. Transfer Certificate was issued by the then Head Master on 20.7.2007 and he proved his handwriting and signature on the transfer certificate. He produced the original T.C. Register before the court. It was admitted by CW-1 that revisionist appeared in Class Xth examination near 2007 and he filed the photocopy of duly certified cross list. Original cross list was also produced before the court. The Sessions Court found that the date of birth of the revisionist recorded in his school is 10.7.1992. It further found that the informant gave an application before the police station on 9.1.2011 alleging that on 27.12.2010 at about 9:30 a.m. the revisionist beated victim/informant and committed the offence of rape and therefore Case Crime No.13/2011 under Section 376 IPC was registered against the revisionist and after submission of charge-sheet, trial is proceeding.

5. The court found that right from the FIR, two dates of incidents have been stated by the victim during the trial. She has also admitted that incident of causing her beating and the incident of commission of offence of rape are two incidents. The incident of causing her beating is dated 27.12.2010 while incident of rape was committed in the year 2007. Therefore two incidents were caused during the interval of three years by the revisionist. The court found that both the incidents were caused in single relationship. The court held that all the incidents were committed in same relationship between the revisionist and the victim. It held that the last incident took place on

27.12.2010 regarding which the FIR was lodged on 9.1.2011. Sessions Court found that on the basis of date of birth 10.7.1992 of the revisionist, on the date of incident dated 27.12.2010, he was above 18 years of age and therefore it cannot be held that he was below 18 years of age at the time of incident and deserves to be tried as juvenile. 3 CRLR No. 1826 of 2018

6. Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that court below has misread the evidence on record. The first incident of rape of victim took place in the year 2007 and therefore on the date of first incident, the revisionist was minor and Sessions court has mixed the incident of 2007 with the incident mentioned in the FIR dated 27.12.2010 and refused to declare the revisionist as juvenile without considering that he was juvenile on the first date of incident in the year 2006-2007.

7. Learned AGA has opposed the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the revisionist.

8. After hearing the rival contentions, this Court finds that in the FIR dated

9.1.2011, there is only mention of incident dated 27.12.2010. There is no mention in the FIR about the incident dated 2006-2007. However in her statement before the trial court, the victim has admitted that in the year 2007, she was studying in Class IXth. It is also admitted in the FIR that the revisionist for the first time committed the alleged offence of rape against the victim when she was studying in Class IXth. Thereafter it appears that he entered into physical relationship/ committed the offence of rape against the victim number of times; made her obscene photographs; blackmailed her on the basis of the same, got her pregnancy aborted and beated her, but the FIR was lodged only when she was beated by revisionist on 27.12.2010 at 9:30 a.m. and he threw acid on her face.

9. This Court further finds that implication of the revisionist has been made under Sections 312, 313, 323, 506, 376 IPC and 3/6 Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986. Going by the statement of the victim before the court, offene of rape was committed by the revisionist against her, when she was studying in Class IXth in the year 2007. Therefore on the date, when the cause of action for his trial under Section 376 IPC arose, the revisionist was clearly about below 15 years of age. It is not the case that the trial of the revisionist is proceeding under Sections 323 and 506 IPC only. The cause of action for trial under Section 376 IPC arose in the year 2007 and since the trial is proceedings under all the sections simultaneously, it is clear that on the fist date of incident of rape, which took place in the year 2007, the revisionist aged about 15 years only. The other offences alleged are not triable as heinous offence and therefore the age of the revisionist at 4 CRLR No. 1826 of 2018 the time of commission of alleged offence of rape against the victim/ informant was relevant and on that date, revisionist was not aged above 18 years as wrongly held by the Sessions Court.

10. Accordingly the order dated 23.4.2018 passed by the Sessions Court is hereby set aside.

11. The above noted criminal revision is allowed.

12. The revisionist is held to be juvenile aged between 15-16 years. He shall be tried accordingly.

13. Office is directed to return the trial court record. October 14, 2025 Ruchi Agrahari (Siddharth,J.) RUCHI AGRAHARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad