State of U.P v. Minor) in Case Crime No

1. Heard Sri Saurabh Sachan, learned counsel for the revisionist; learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.

2. The present criminal revision has been filed to set and aside the judgement and order dated 8.10.2024 passed by Special Judge, POCSO Act/ Additional Session Judge, Chitrakoot, in Criminal Appeal No. 31 of 2023 (Minor Vs. State of U.P.) and order dated 6.9.2023 passed by Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Chitrakoot, in Criminal Case no.37 of 2011 (State of U.P. Vs. Minor) in Case Crime No. 432 of 2008, under Section 307 I.P.C, Police Station Karvi, District Chitrakoot.

3. No one has put in appearance on behalf of the informant, opposite party no.2, when opposite party no.2 is represented by Santosh Kumar Shukla, Advocate.

4. The prosecution case, in short, is that in room no.34 of the hostel of Chitrakoot Inter College, Karwi, Chitrakoot, mate of the room, Ashish Kumar, was caused gun shot injury on his chest by the revisionist, who was residing in room no.29 in the aforesaid hostel. After the incident, injured was taken to the hospital. At the time of incident, number of students were present around the hostel.

5. Criminal Case No.432 of 2008, under Section 307 was registered and the revisionist was, accordingly, charge-sheeted. He was declared juvenile during the trial and trial court declared him guilty in the aforesaid case and convicted and sentenced him for alleged offence under Section 307 IPC for the period of one year and imposed fine of Rs.500/- on him. An appeal was preferred before the Children's Court by the revisionist, which was dismissed by the judgement and order dated 8.10.20204 and hence this appeal.

6. P.W.-1, the informant stated that on the date of incident dated 07.02.2008 he was warden of the hostel where the incident took place at about 09:00 a.m. He stated that he lodged the first information report on the basis of information given by the students. He could not tell the names of student who informed him about the incident. He did not saw the revisionist jumping from the roof or running away. He also denied having information of any enmity of the revisionist with the injured or subjecting of revisionist to any punishment or any mischief.

7. P.W.-2, Ashish Kumar, claimed himself to be eye-witness and injured stated that it was the revisionist who came with a country made pistol and fired on his chest, he became unconscious. The complaint of revisionist was made by some inmates of the hostel to the hostel warden, P.W.-1. In cross-examination, P.W.-2, denied that he had any old enmity with the revisionist. He could not inform the names of inmates of hostel who made complaint of the revisionist to PW-1. He stated that he was threatened by the revisionist 4 - 5 days before the incident and he had made a complaint to P.W.-1 who did nothing against the revisionist. He denied his statement recorded by the police that prior to the incident the revisionist was found watching C.D and he informed about his conduct to the second warden. He did not informed the investigating officer that the guardian of revisionist were called by college management. He admitted that his room-mate, Pradeep Kumar, in the hostel was not present on the date of incident. He could not also state where his room-mate, Pradeep Kumar, went on the date of incident. At the time of incident, he was wearing the jacket and vest but he does not knows where his clothes went after the incident. He also did not stated whether after the incident, the inmates around came on the spot and after the incident where the revisionist went.

8. P.W.-3, the Doctor, admitted before the court that no policemen accompanied the injured with the majroobi chhitthi when the injured was brought before him in the emergency department of the hospital. He found one gun shot injury on the left side of chest of the injured. He stated that blood must have been found on the clothes of the injured but he did not got his clothes sealed. No police personnel was present at the time of medical examination of P.W.-2.

9. P.W.-4, was a formal witnes who prove the lodging of F.I.R and C.D. entry made by him.

10. P.W.-5, Ashutosh Mishra, who was produced by the prosecution as eye-witness denied that he saw the revisionist firing on the injured. P.W.-2, he was declared hostile. In his cross-examination, he admitted that he only heard the sound of firing and when he reached the place of incident, the injured had already fallen down and blood was coming out from his injury.

11. The Juvenile Justice Board after consideration of above facts convicted and sentenced the revisionist. The Appellate Court has affirmed the judgment of the Juvenile Justice Board.

12. After hearing the rival submissions, this court finds that although P.W.-2, the injured, has made allegations against the revisionist but it appears that the investigating officer has not conducted the investigation properly for the reasons best known to the investigating officer. All the prosecution witnesses have failed to prove the prosecution case but the statement of PW-2, the injured, inspires confidence. Therefore, keeping in view the eye-witness account of the injured, P.W.-2, the impugned judgments and orders of trial court and Appellate Court are affirmed.

13. In view the fact that the revisionist was juvenile at the time of incident and had no prior criminal antecedent, the conviction of revisionist is upheld but his sentence is reduced to the period already undergone which is about half of sentence awarded.

15. The revision is partly allowed.

16. Office is directed to return the trial court record, within a week. Order Date :- 18.8.2025 Ruchi Agrahari RUCHI AGRAHARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. Heard Sri Saurabh Sachan, learned counsel for the revisionist; learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.

2. The present criminal revision has been filed to set and aside the judgement and order dated 8.10.2024 passed by Special Judge, POCSO Act/ Additional Session Judge, Chitrakoot, in Criminal Appeal No. 31 of 2023 (Minor Vs. State of U.P.) and order dated 6.9.2023 passed by Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Chitrakoot, in Criminal Case no.37 of 2011 (State of U.P. Vs. Minor) in Case Crime No. 432 of 2008, under Section 307 I.P.C, Police Station Karvi, District Chitrakoot.

3. No one has put in appearance on behalf of the informant, opposite party no.2, when opposite party no.2 is represented by Santosh Kumar Shukla, Advocate.

4. The prosecution case, in short, is that in room no.34 of the hostel of Chitrakoot Inter College, Karwi, Chitrakoot, mate of the room, Ashish Kumar, was caused gun shot injury on his chest by the revisionist, who was residing in room no.29 in the aforesaid hostel. After the incident, injured was taken to the hospital. At the time of incident, number of students were present around the hostel.

5. Criminal Case No.432 of 2008, under Section 307 was registered and the revisionist was, accordingly, charge-sheeted. He was declared juvenile during the trial and trial court declared him guilty in the aforesaid case and convicted and sentenced him for alleged offence under Section 307 IPC for the period of one year and imposed fine of Rs.500/- on him. An appeal was preferred before the Children's Court by the revisionist, which was dismissed by the judgement and order dated 8.10.20204 and hence this appeal.

6. P.W.-1, the informant stated that on the date of incident dated 07.02.2008 he was warden of the hostel where the incident took place at about 09:00 a.m. He stated that he lodged the first information report on the basis of information given by the students. He could not tell the names of student who informed him about the incident. He did not saw the revisionist jumping from the roof or running away. He also denied having information of any enmity of the revisionist with the injured or subjecting of revisionist to any punishment or any mischief.

7. P.W.-2, Ashish Kumar, claimed himself to be eye-witness and injured stated that it was the revisionist who came with a country made pistol and fired on his chest, he became unconscious. The complaint of revisionist was made by some inmates of the hostel to the hostel warden, P.W.-1. In cross-examination, P.W.-2, denied that he had any old enmity with the revisionist. He could not inform the names of inmates of hostel who made complaint of the revisionist to PW-1. He stated that he was threatened by the revisionist 4 - 5 days before the incident and he had made a complaint to P.W.-1 who did nothing against the revisionist. He denied his statement recorded by the police that prior to the incident the revisionist was found watching C.D and he informed about his conduct to the second warden. He did not informed the investigating officer that the guardian of revisionist were called by college management. He admitted that his room-mate, Pradeep Kumar, in the hostel was not present on the date of incident. He could not also state where his room-mate, Pradeep Kumar, went on the date of incident. At the time of incident, he was wearing the jacket and vest but he does not knows where his clothes went after the incident. He also did not stated whether after the incident, the inmates around came on the spot and after the incident where the revisionist went.

8. P.W.-3, the Doctor, admitted before the court that no policemen accompanied the injured with the majroobi chhitthi when the injured was brought before him in the emergency department of the hospital. He found one gun shot injury on the left side of chest of the injured. He stated that blood must have been found on the clothes of the injured but he did not got his clothes sealed. No police personnel was present at the time of medical examination of P.W.-2.

9. P.W.-4, was a formal witnes who prove the lodging of F.I.R and C.D. entry made by him.

10. P.W.-5, Ashutosh Mishra, who was produced by the prosecution as eye-witness denied that he saw the revisionist firing on the injured. P.W.-2, he was declared hostile. In his cross-examination, he admitted that he only heard the sound of firing and when he reached the place of incident, the injured had already fallen down and blood was coming out from his injury.

11. The Juvenile Justice Board after consideration of above facts convicted and sentenced the revisionist. The Appellate Court has affirmed the judgment of the Juvenile Justice Board.

12. After hearing the rival submissions, this court finds that although P.W.-2, the injured, has made allegations against the revisionist but it appears that the investigating officer has not conducted the investigation properly for the reasons best known to the investigating officer. All the prosecution witnesses have failed to prove the prosecution case but the statement of PW-2, the injured, inspires confidence. Therefore, keeping in view the eye-witness account of the injured, P.W.-2, the impugned judgments and orders of trial court and Appellate Court are affirmed.

13. In view the fact that the revisionist was juvenile at the time of incident and had no prior criminal antecedent, the conviction of revisionist is upheld but his sentence is reduced to the period already undergone which is about half of sentence awarded.

15. The revision is partly allowed.

16. Office is directed to return the trial court record, within a week. Order Date :- 18.8.2025 Ruchi Agrahari RUCHI AGRAHARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad