Heard Sri Radhey Shyam Shukla, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Sushil Pandey, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and learned A.G.A. for the opposite party no. 1.
This criminal revision has been preferred against the impugned judgment and order dated 03.07.2015 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Pilibhit in Criminal Appeal No. 40 of 2015-Anuj @ Prasoon Shukla through his guardian and natural mother Seema Shukla @ Reena Shukla Vs. State of U.P., under Section 52 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), Police Station Sungarhi, District Pilibhit, by which the criminal appeal filed by the revisionist has been dismissed, and also against the order dated 29.05.2015 passed by the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Pilibhit in Case Crime No. 529 of 2015-State Vs. Anuj @ Prasoon Shukla, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 452, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Sungarhi, District Pilibhit, by which the bail application of the "juvenile in conflict with law" presented through his guardian and natural mother Seema Shukla @ Reena Shukla has been rejected.
In short, as per the F.I.R. version, the informant Neelu Rupali Pandey on 06.03.2015 at about 12.20 P.M. presented a written application before the Officer Incharge Police Station Sungarhi, Pilibhit that on 06.03.2015 at about 11.45 A.M. in the noon when she along with her father Nirmal Mishra, mother Santosh Mishra and brother Mudit Mishra were present in their home, at that time, suddenly Devendra Shukla @ Mintu, Rahul Shukla @ Rinku both sons of Mahesh Shukla wielding knives in their hands, Triloki Nath Shukla @ Tillu, son of Mahesh Shukla wielding 'Gupti' in his hand, Anuj Shukla, son of Devendra Shukla, Mahesh Shukla son of Prabhu Dayal Shukla wielding knives in their hands, all resident of Nai Basti near Chhatari Chauraha, Police Station Pilibhit entered into the house of the informant and all with common intention to kill the father of the informant attacked him. Mahesh Shukla abused and said that he had lodged the report against his daughter so he may not be spared. All the accused persons badly injured the father of the informant by causing injuries with knives and 'Gupti'. When the informant and her brother Mudit Mishra and mother tried to save her father, they have also beaten them. All the accused persons after giving them threat to their lives went away. Just before the incident, Mahesh Shukla had given threat to kill the father of the informant on telephone.
This F.I.R. was promptly lodged on 06.03.2015 at 12.20 P.M.
In the oral evidence Smt. Neelu Rupali Pandey (informant), daughter of late Nirmal Mishra, resident of Mandi Wali Gali Mohalla Ballabh Nagar, Police Station Sungarhi, Pilibhit deposed that seven years ago, she was happily married to Prakash Pandey in Bareilly. After some time, her husband developed inclination towards her Jethani Shilpi wife of Deepak Pandey to which she used to oppose. Since last two months, he had come to her parents' place. On 18.2.2015 her father-in-law, mother-in-law, husband and Jethani Shilpi came to her parents' house and abused and intimidated her for which she has lodged a case in Case Crime No. 426 of 2015, under Sections 498A, 504, 506 I.P.C. and ¾ D.P. Act against her father-in-law Sudhir, mother-in-law Shakuntala, husband Prakash Pandey and Jethani Shilpi on 22.2.2015. Since the parental home of Shilpi situates at Chhatari Chauraha Pilibhit so family members of her Jethani Shilpi did not relish that incident. Thereafter this witness reiterated the F.I.R. version in her oral testimony and deposed that her father fell on the ground. She accompanied him in the injured condition to the police station for lodging the F.I.R. and thereafter from the police station along with one police constable she reached the hospital where her father died during treatment. It has also been mentioned that while deposing before the Juvenile Justice Board, the witness/informant Smt. Neelu Rupali Pandey started sobbing and weeping.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that the impugned order dated 03.07.2015 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Pilibhit and order dated 29.5.2015 passed by the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Pilibhit are illegal, unjust and wholly without jurisdiction. It is further submitted that the learned Magistrate has passed the impugned order in a routine and mechanical manner. The finding of the courts below that the revisionist would come in contact with known or unknown criminals is wholly illegal and against the material available on record. It is also submitted that the report submitted by the District Probation Officer, Pilibhit is cryptic and vague. The courts below have rejected the bail prayer of the revisionist solely on the basis of the report of the District Probation Officer, Pilibhit that the father, uncles and grandfather of the revisionist, who are accused in Case Crime No. 529 of 2015, are in jail since 11.3.2015 and it appears that there is no control of his mother on him. No specific role has been assigned to the revisionist. It is next submitted that the impugned orders of the courts below are wholly illegal, unreasoned and based on surmises and conjectures and as such, the same are not sustainable in the eyes of law and liable to be set aside.
I have gone through the Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. The relevant portion of Section 12 of the is quoted verbatim as follows:-
"12. Bail to a person who is apparently a child alleged to be in conflict with law-(1) When any person, who is apparently a child and is alleged to have committed a bailable or non-bailable offence, is apprehended or detained by the police or appears or brought before a Board, such person shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or in any other law for the time being in force, be released on bail with or without surety or placed under the supervision of a probation officer or under the care of any fit person:
Provided that such person shall not be so released if there appears reasonable grounds for believing that the release is likely to bring that person into association with any known criminal or expose the said person to moral, physical or psychological danger or the person's release would defeat the ends of justice, and the Board shall record the reasons for denying the bail and circumstances that led to such a decision."
In the context, I have also gone through the following judgments of this Court as well as of the Apex Court.
1. Monu @ Moni @ Rahul @ Rohit Vs. State of U.P., 2011 (61) ACR 2582.
2. Mohit Vs. State of U.P. and another, 2013 (83) ALLCC, 242.
3. Virendra Vs. State of U.P., 2015 (1) ACR 629.
4. Shabbir Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2015 (88) ALLCC 161.
5. Sonu Tomar Vs. State of U.P., 2015 (2) ACR 2284.
6. Amit Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2016 (93) ALLCC 571.
The Apex Court in the case of Om Prakash Vs. State of Rajasthan and another, (2012) 5 SCC 201 has cautioned the Courts to be more sensitive in dealing with juvenile in cases of serious nature like sexual molestation, rape, gang-rape murder etc. The relevant extract of the said judgment in paragraphs 3 and 23 are being reproduced below in reference:-
"3. Juvenile Justice Act was enacted with a laudable object of providing a separate forum or a special court for holding trial of children/juvenile by the juvenile court as it was felt that children become delinquent by force of circumstance and not by choice and hence they need to be treated with care and sensitivity while dealing and trying cases involving criminal offence. But when an accused is alleged to have committed a heinous offence like rape and murder or any other grave offence when he ceased to be a child on attaining the age of 18 years, but seeks protection of the Juvenile Justice Act under the ostensible plea of being a minor, should such an accused be allowed to be tried by a juvenile court or should he be referred to a competent court of criminal jurisdiction where the trial of other adult persons are held.
23. ....Similarly, if the conduct of an accused or the method and manner of commission of the offence indicates an evil and a well planned design of the accused committing the offence which indicates more towards the matured skill of an accused than that of an innocent child, then in the absence of reliable documentary evidence in support of the age of the accused, medical evidence indicating that the accused was a major cannot be allowed to be ignored taking shelter of the principle of benevolent legislation like the Juvenile Justice Act, subverting the course of justice as statutory protection of the Juvenile Justice Act is meant for minors who are innocent law breakers and not accused of matured mind who uses the plea of minority as a ploy or shield to protect himself from the sentence of the offence committed by him."
In the order dated 3.7.2015 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Pilibhit, it has been vividly mentioned that according to report of the District Probation Officer, the juvenile in conflict with law is a student of class XII.
Mixed reaction has been expressed about the family of the revisionist. It has been mentioned in that report that the alleged incident took place due to family feud and enmity and in the alleged incident, father, uncles and grandfather all are accused persons.
The learned Sessions Judge, Pilibhit has arrived at the conclusion that there was no control of the family members over the revisionist. Due to this, he along with his family members had committed this wicked crime and if released on bail; there are sure chances which would likely to bring the revisionist into association with known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger.
The rider of the 'person's release would defeat the ends of justice' requires attention.
The 'juvenile in conflict with law' does not entitle him to be released on bail solely on the ground of his juvenility. The juvenile offenders who have criminal tendencies and have inclination and attraction to commit crime "at the drop of a hat", should be segregated and should not be integrated to set the shield of this benevolent legislation. It is of paramount importance to upkeep and safeguard the larger interest of the society. Due to this, exception to the rule of bail to a juvenile has also been included. A too liberal interpretation in the matters related to ghastly crimes would definitely result in defeating the ends of justice.
The relevant extract of the judgment in Virendra Vs. State of U.P., 2015 (1) ACR 629 para 23 is quoted below:-
"23. A citizen's claim to equality before the law is a claim of justice. Justice has been termed as the highest virtue. It has also been equated with fairness. Fairness connotes fairness to all i.e. equal treatment to all. Sense of injustice is a powerful human emotion. It is strongest when a person's own interests are harmed, but it also aroused in civilized people when they witness wrongs done to others. Ultimate object of every legal system is to secure justice which is at the centre of moral and social philosophy. The instinct for justice leads us to believe that right, and not might, is the true basis of society. The principles of justice that define duties and rights should be neutral with respect to compacting conception of good life. Defeat of ends of justice is bound to result in injustice which produces conflict within the individual and sets him at variance with himself and with all who are just. Injustice is inseparable from virtue which consist of ethics and justice in universal sense. Injustice in the particular sense is the injustice that causes harm to others. Virtue based approach connects justice to reflection about good life. This approach ensures that justice means giving people what they morally deserve-allocating goods to reward and promote virtue. It is thus apparent that the concept of justice lies at the heart of moral philosophy where righteousness, fairness and truth are the basic values and it should include people from all walks of life. Therefore, it is safe to conclude that wellbeing of the community takes precedence over the liberty and preventing injustice would always be a pursuit of justice. Leaving society to live with persons of perverted nature would be an affront to the dignity of human beings and tends to promote anarchy and unrest in society which is sure to defeat the ends of justice."
It would not be out of context to cite the paragraphs 376 and 377 of the extract of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Essa @ Anjum Abdul Razak Memon (A-3) and others Vs. The State of Maharashtra, through STF, CBI Mumbai and others, JT 2013 (6) SC 1, which are quoted below:
"376. While dealing with such an issue, the court must not lose sight of the fact that meaning of "ends of justice" essentially refers to justice to all the parties. This phrase refers to the best interest of the public within the four corners of the statute. In fact, it means preservation of proper balance between the Constitutional/Statutory rights of an individual and rights of the people at large to have the law enforced. The "ends of justice" does not mean vague and indeterminate notions of justice, but justice according to the law of the land. (vide: State Bank of Patiala and others v. S.K. Sharma MANU/SC/0438/1996: AIR 1996 SC 1669; and Mahadev Govind Gharge and others v. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Upper Krishna Project, Jamkhandi, Karnataka MANU/SC/0597/2011: (2011) 6 SCC 321).
377. Thus, the law has to be interpreted in such a manner that it develops coherently in accordance with the principles, so as to serve, even-handedly, the ends of justice."
In revision under Section 397 Cr.P.C., the revisional court cannot analyze and interfere in the findings of fact of the lower courts and appellate jurisdiction is not available to the revisional court to interfere in the findings of fact recorded by the courts below.
In view of the above discussions, the impugned orders show that the courts below have considered the correctness, legality and propriety of the matter and did not act with any irregularity at the time of giving findings of fact relating to revisionist.
There is no illegality, perversity or infirmity in the impugned orders. The revision lacks merits and is liable to be dismissed.
The revision is, accordingly, dismissed.
Interim order, if any, is vacated.
Order Date :-29.7.2016 Rmk.