SHATRUGHAN Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a Revision under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (hereafter referred to as the ''Act') challenging a judgment and order dated 15.02.2019 passed by Sri Abhay Srivastava, the then VIIIth Additional Sessions Judge, Jhansi, dismissing the revisionist?s Criminal Appeal from an order of the Juvenile Justice Board, Jhansi, dated 15.10.2018, rejecting the revisionist?s bail plea in Case Crime no.20 of 2018, under Sections 363, 376 IPC, Section 3(2)5 of the SC/ST Act and Section 3/4 of the POCSO Act, Police Station Erch, District Jhansi.

(2.) The allegations in the FIR in substance are that the prosecutrix is a member of a Scheduled Caste. In the night of 20/21.01.2018, she was asleep with her family. The father of the prosecutrix was awakened by his wife in the night hours to tell him that the prosecutrix was not at home. The prosecutrix was searched by the family members, but to no avail. The informant went to the revisionist?s home on a tip-off from his younger daughter, where he found the prosecutrix. The prosecutrix on arrival of her family told the informant that she had been called through blandishment by the revisionist, who had carnal relations with her. This is all that was said in the FIR.

(3.) In her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the prosecutrix has stated before the Magistrate that the revisionist called her over phone that his mother was calling the prosecutrix over to his home. It was about 10 p.m. in the night. The mother and the grandmother of the prosecutrix were at home. The prosecutrix went over to the revisionist?s place. The revisionist is said to have ravished the prosecutrix and lateron administered some sleeping pills. It is stated that the prosecutrix was locked up in a box and was relieved from that confinement by the Village Chowkidar. Thereafter, the police arrived and she narrated the incident to them. It is urged by the learned Counsel for the revisionist that there is no quarrel about the fact that the revisionist has been declared a juvenile. This fact is not in issue. The revisionist was aged 17 years 7 months and 9 days on the date of occurrence.