State of U.P. and Another v. Party

1. Heard Sri Rajendra Prasad Shukla, learned counsel for the revisionist; Sri Krishna Kanhaiya Soni, learned counsel for the informant; learned AGA for the State-respondents and perused the material on record.

2. The present criminal revision has been been filed against the judgment and order dated 13.09.2022 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act) Meerut, in Criminal Appeal No. 76/2022 (X Vs. State of U.P. and another) and order dated 30.05.2022 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Meerut, in Criminal Case No. 113/1997 (State Vs. X) having case crime no. 239/1997, under section 302 of I.P.C., Police Station- Kharkhauda, District- Meerut.

3. The prosecution case as per the F.I.R. is that on 10.08.1997 at about 12 p.m., the son of the informant, Tauseef, aged about 8 years was enticed away by the revisionist, Yameen, and on the same day his minor son was murdered by causing knife injuries.

4. To prove the prosecution case, the prosecution produced P.W.- 1,Chidda; P.W.-2, Sirajuddin and P.W.-3, Rafique.

5. The statement of the revisionist was recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein he denied the charges and claimed false implication in this case. He also refused to lead any evidence in his defence. 2 CRLR No. 5234 of 2022

6. The informant, Mohd. Yameen, had died during the pendency of trial and, therefore, he could not be examined.

7. P.W.-1, Chidda, stated that the incident was committed between

10.08.1997 and 11.08.1997. He knew Mohd. Yameen, son of Siddique, the informant, who came to commit the offence of loot in his village, and was beaten to death. Tahseen son of Yameen, went missing from his village and his wife informed, Yameen, about this incident that at about 02:00 p.m., the accused had came to his garden and after purchasing guava of Rs. 4 went with Tahseen. 3-4 days, thereafter, dead body of Tahseen was recovered. He has informed this fact to the investigating officer.

8. P.W.-2, Sirajuddin, stated that son of Yameen went missing from the village while playing. When he did not returned to his home till evening, his search was launched. Next day the villagers found that dead body of Tahseen is lying in the agricultural field of Kunwarpal. Some villagers were saying that he had gone with his mother while others were saying that he had gone to eat guava.

9. P.W.-3, Rafique, stated that on the fateful day, he saw the revisionist going towards the bushes alongwith the deceased, Tahseen. When he returned his locality number of persons had gathered who informed that Taheseen is missing since 12:00 p.m. and not being traced. The revisionist was also missing. He had informed, Yameen, father of Tahseen, that when he was returning from his field at about 06:00 p.m., he saw Tahseen going with the revisionist towards the bushes. He proved that the deceased was last seen with the revisionist and he caused his murder by inflicting knife injuries.

10. The Juvenile Justice Board, on the basis of the evidence of the eye witnesses and not finding any evidence to the contrary lead by the defence found that the prosecution has succeeded in proving its case against the revisionist beyond reasonable doubt and directed his conviction for 12 months during which he was directed to perform reformative services while being detained in child protection home vide its judgments and order dated 30.05.2022. 3 CRLR No. 5234 of 2022

11. The Criminal Appeal No. 76/2022 was preferred before the Children's Court by the revisionist which was dismissed by the judgment and order dated 13.09.2022 upholding the judgment and order dated passed by the Juvenile Justice Board dated 30.05.2022, but instead of sending the revisionist to child protection home for one year and for community service he was directed to be detained in child protection for six months only and was directed to deposit to fine of Rs. 50,000/-.

12. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that there is no direct eye witness account of the incident and the statements of P.W.-1, P.W.-2 and P.W.-3 were contrary and did not proved the prosecution case.

13. P.W.-1 had not seen the incident; P.W.-2 has given statement on the basis of hearsay and P.W.-3 is not eye witness of the incident. The last seen evidence against the revisionist was not reliable.

14. Learned counsel for the informant and learned AGA have supported the judgments impugned in this revision and have submitted that the prosecution case is although based on last seen evidence, but it was proved beyond reasonable doubt before the court.

15. P.W.-3, has given eye witness account of last seen of the deceased with the revisionist before the Board. The post mortem report of the deceased proved that incident of murder of deceased was committed in the evening of 07.08.1997 i.e., the date of which he went missing.

16. After hearing the rival submissions, this Court finds that the judgment and orders passed by the both the courts below do not suffer from any legal infirmity. The appellate court has considered the law regarding last seen the evidence while affirming the order of the trial court which has already reduced the period of sentence/detention of the revisionist from one year to six months in protection home and instead of directed the revisionist to deposit fine of Rs. 50,000/-.

17. Learned counsel for the revisionist was directed to obtain instructions whether the revisionist has undergone the period of sentence or not, but he is unable to inform anything about the same. 4 CRLR No. 5234 of 2022

18. In view of the consideration, the judgments and orders of punishment passed by both the courts below are hereby confirmed.

19. The revision lacks merit and is hereby dismissed.

20. Let the trial court record be returned to the trial court and this judgment be notified to the trial court within one week. September 25, 2025 Abhishek (Siddharth,J.) ABHISHEK YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. Heard Sri Rajendra Prasad Shukla, learned counsel for the revisionist; Sri Krishna Kanhaiya Soni, learned counsel for the informant; learned AGA for the State-respondents and perused the material on record.

2. The present criminal revision has been been filed against the judgment and order dated 13.09.2022 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act) Meerut, in Criminal Appeal No. 76/2022 (X Vs. State of U.P. and another) and order dated 30.05.2022 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Meerut, in Criminal Case No. 113/1997 (State Vs. X) having case crime no. 239/1997, under section 302 of I.P.C., Police Station- Kharkhauda, District- Meerut.

3. The prosecution case as per the F.I.R. is that on 10.08.1997 at about 12 p.m., the son of the informant, Tauseef, aged about 8 years was enticed away by the revisionist, Yameen, and on the same day his minor son was murdered by causing knife injuries.

4. To prove the prosecution case, the prosecution produced P.W.- 1,Chidda; P.W.-2, Sirajuddin and P.W.-3, Rafique.

5. The statement of the revisionist was recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein he denied the charges and claimed false implication in this case. He also refused to lead any evidence in his defence. 2 CRLR No. 5234 of 2022

6. The informant, Mohd. Yameen, had died during the pendency of trial and, therefore, he could not be examined.

7. P.W.-1, Chidda, stated that the incident was committed between

10.08.1997 and 11.08.1997. He knew Mohd. Yameen, son of Siddique, the informant, who came to commit the offence of loot in his village, and was beaten to death. Tahseen son of Yameen, went missing from his village and his wife informed, Yameen, about this incident that at about 02:00 p.m., the accused had came to his garden and after purchasing guava of Rs. 4 went with Tahseen. 3-4 days, thereafter, dead body of Tahseen was recovered. He has informed this fact to the investigating officer.

8. P.W.-2, Sirajuddin, stated that son of Yameen went missing from the village while playing. When he did not returned to his home till evening, his search was launched. Next day the villagers found that dead body of Tahseen is lying in the agricultural field of Kunwarpal. Some villagers were saying that he had gone with his mother while others were saying that he had gone to eat guava.

9. P.W.-3, Rafique, stated that on the fateful day, he saw the revisionist going towards the bushes alongwith the deceased, Tahseen. When he returned his locality number of persons had gathered who informed that Taheseen is missing since 12:00 p.m. and not being traced. The revisionist was also missing. He had informed, Yameen, father of Tahseen, that when he was returning from his field at about 06:00 p.m., he saw Tahseen going with the revisionist towards the bushes. He proved that the deceased was last seen with the revisionist and he caused his murder by inflicting knife injuries.

10. The Juvenile Justice Board, on the basis of the evidence of the eye witnesses and not finding any evidence to the contrary lead by the defence found that the prosecution has succeeded in proving its case against the revisionist beyond reasonable doubt and directed his conviction for 12 months during which he was directed to perform reformative services while being detained in child protection home vide its judgments and order dated 30.05.2022. 3 CRLR No. 5234 of 2022

11. The Criminal Appeal No. 76/2022 was preferred before the Children's Court by the revisionist which was dismissed by the judgment and order dated 13.09.2022 upholding the judgment and order dated passed by the Juvenile Justice Board dated 30.05.2022, but instead of sending the revisionist to child protection home for one year and for community service he was directed to be detained in child protection for six months only and was directed to deposit to fine of Rs. 50,000/-.

12. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that there is no direct eye witness account of the incident and the statements of P.W.-1, P.W.-2 and P.W.-3 were contrary and did not proved the prosecution case.

13. P.W.-1 had not seen the incident; P.W.-2 has given statement on the basis of hearsay and P.W.-3 is not eye witness of the incident. The last seen evidence against the revisionist was not reliable.

14. Learned counsel for the informant and learned AGA have supported the judgments impugned in this revision and have submitted that the prosecution case is although based on last seen evidence, but it was proved beyond reasonable doubt before the court.

15. P.W.-3, has given eye witness account of last seen of the deceased with the revisionist before the Board. The post mortem report of the deceased proved that incident of murder of deceased was committed in the evening of 07.08.1997 i.e., the date of which he went missing.

16. After hearing the rival submissions, this Court finds that the judgment and orders passed by the both the courts below do not suffer from any legal infirmity. The appellate court has considered the law regarding last seen the evidence while affirming the order of the trial court which has already reduced the period of sentence/detention of the revisionist from one year to six months in protection home and instead of directed the revisionist to deposit fine of Rs. 50,000/-.

17. Learned counsel for the revisionist was directed to obtain instructions whether the revisionist has undergone the period of sentence or not, but he is unable to inform anything about the same. 4 CRLR No. 5234 of 2022

18. In view of the consideration, the judgments and orders of punishment passed by both the courts below are hereby confirmed.

19. The revision lacks merit and is hereby dismissed.

20. Let the trial court record be returned to the trial court and this judgment be notified to the trial court within one week. September 25, 2025 Abhishek (Siddharth,J.) ABHISHEK YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad