Court No. - 86
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3427 of 2019 Revisionist :- Anil Kumar Sonkar Opposite Party :- State Of Up And Anr Counsel for Revisionist :- Ganesh Shankar Dubey,Pratik J. Nagar,Sarvendra Dwivedi,Ulajhan Singh Bind Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Shivbaboo
Hon'ble Umesh Kumar,J.
Learned counsel for the revisionist, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 as well as learned A.G.A. are present.
The present criminal revision has been preferred against the impugned judgment and order dated 25.6.2019 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act), Court No.8, Allahabad, in Criminal Appeal No. 46 of 2009 (Suresh Kumar Sonkar Vs. State of U.P. and Another) arsing out of Case Crime No. 140 of 2019 under Section 363, 366, 376 IPC and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act, P.W.- Meja, District- Prayagraj. By the impugned judgment the learned Appellate Court setting-aside order dated 12.3.2019 passed by Trial Court has remanded the matter for disposal afresh in view of the observations made therein.
By order dated 12.3.2019 the revisionist has been declared to be juvenile aged 13 years, 11 months and 13 days (approximately) on 17.2.2019, the date of incident.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.
Submission of learned counsel for the revisionist is that despite school certificate showing the date of birth of revisionist as 4.3.2005 the same has not been considered. Moreover, in the medical examination report his age has been determined as 17 years but the learned Appellate Court relying upon the oral evidence of opposite party no.2 has illegally remanded the matter to the Trial Court. Therefore, the impugned judgment is illegal and bad in law and liable to be set-aside.
Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for opposite party no.2 by raising various submission has supported the impugned judgment.
In the impugned judgment the appellate Court has observed that there is contrary evidence with regard to the date of birth of the revisionist-respondent; in the statement of Principal of Poonam Primary Girls School and in the scalar register, the date of birth of the revisionist is shown as 4.3.2005 whereas from the statement of the appellant-opposite party no.2, date of birth of the revisionist is shown as 6.6.2001. It has also been noted that during investigation no notice to appellant/informant was given by the I.O. while collecting the evidence regarding age of the accused.
Having gone through the record, I do not find any manifest error or otherwise illegality, procedural or otherwise, so as to justify interference in criminal revision. The Appellate Court has rightly remanded the matter for disposal afresh.
Accordingly revision is dismissed. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. Certify this judgment to the lower Court.
Order Date :- 27.7.2021 S.Verma