Court No. - 49
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 291 of 2020 Revisionist :- Hani @ Saksham Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Ors. Counsel for Revisionist :- Dinesh Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vivek Agarwal,J.
1. Heard Sri Dinesh Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for revisionist/petitioner and learned AGA for the State.
2. As per office report dated 28.08.2020, despite service of notices, nobody is appearing for respondent nos. 2 and 3.
3. This criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist, who is reported to be in custody since 31.08.2019, against impugned judgment and order dated 19.12.2019 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Meerut in Criminal Appeal No. 153 of 2019 whereby learned Sessions Judge has dismissed the criminal appeal and has confirmed the order dated 16.10.2019 passed by learned Juvenile Justice Board, Meerut whereby the Juvenile Justice Board, rejected an application on part of the applicant/revisionist to release him on bail and in custody of his natural guardians, in relation to Case Crime No. 491 of 2019 under Sections 354(B), 354(C), 363 and 376-D IPC, Sections 67 and 67-A of Information Technology Act and Section 3 read with Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, Police Station-Jani, District-Meerut on the basis of its finding that 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, otherwise would amount to subverting of the course of justice. It is held that act of committing of offence of gang rape, punishable under Sections 376-D IPC along with his associate with full planning, cannot said to be an innocent act of a minor law breakers but that of a matured mind.
4. Learned counsel for revisionist submits that revisionist is in custody since 31.08.2019 and he is innocent and has been falsely implicated.
5. Learned AGA, in his turn, submits that as per statements of the victim given under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., reveals that in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., she has categorically mentioned that she is aged about 15 years, student of Class-IXth and when on 21.03.2019, she was taking bath at her residence, then accused had prepared a video after climbing on her roof. On 23.03.2019, when she had gone to take water at public tap, then both the accused had stopped her on way and had asked her to accompany them, else, threatened with consequences of putting her video on net. Under duress, she was taken to the house of one of the co-accused where she was beaten and stripped off her clothes and was raped twice, a video of which was prepared, was viraled in the village. In her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., she supported her statements, given to the police, under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Her medical report reveals that she narrated this fact of violence and violation of her privacy to the concerned Medical Officer and though her medical took place after almost six months of the incident but her hymen was found to be old, ruptured and healed.
6. Law in this regard, as laid down by a Coordinate Bench of this High Court in Krishna Rawal vs. State of U.P. and Another; (2016) 93 ACC 725 and also in Suraj Gupta (Minor) through his father vs. State of U.P. and Others; (2018) 102 ACC 220, is crystal clear. It provides that though gravity of the offence is not relevant consideration to reject the bail prayer of a juvenile, but what is to be seen is where in the facts of the case, bail is granted to the revisionist, it would defeat the ends of justice or not.
7. In fact, in case of Om Prakash vs. State of Rajasthan and Another; (2012) 5 SCC 201, Supreme Court has cautioned the court to be more sensitive in dealing with the juvenile in cases of serious nature of offences like sexual molestation, rape, gang rape or murder etc. and when tested on this yardstick, so also the law laid down in case of Essa @ Anjum Abdul Razak Memon and Other vs. State of Maharashtra, S.T.F., C.B.I., Mumbai and Others; 2013 SCC Online 255, where, while dealing with such an issue, it is held that "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."
8. In the present case, when tested on this anvil, then impugned order of the courts below, cannot be faulted with, especially, when there appears to be a well planned conspiracy, hatched by the accused, not only prepared the video film, but also to blackmail the victim on the basis of such video film, so to coerce her into submission against her will. Therefore, revision fails and is dismissed.
Order Date :- 13.8.2021Vikram/-