SAJAN Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision has been preferred by the revisionist Sajan @ Lula, (Minor) through his natural guardian mother, Smt. Babli against the the judgment and order dated 24.4.2019 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Farrukhabad in Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 2019 (Sajan @ Lula Vs. State) u/s 52 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2016 as well as order dated 3.4.2019 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Farrukhabad, in case crime No. 591 of 2018, u/s 377, 302, 201 IPC and u/s 3/4 POCSO Act, P.S. Kotwali, District Farrukhabad.

(2.) Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A for State of U.P. and perused the record.

(3.) Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the revisionist is juvenile and has falsely been implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that the FIR against the appellant was lodged under Sections 377, 302 IPC and u/s 3/4 POCSO Act and Investing Officer, after investigation, submitted the charge sheet under Sections 377, 302, 201 IPC and u/s 3/4 POCSO Act. It is also submitted that there is no documentary evidence regarding the age of the juvenile convict. It is also contended that as per medical report, at the time of incident, age of the revisionist was about 12 years and only last seen evidence is available against the revisionist. It is further submitted that the trial of the case is pending before Juvenile Justice Board. There is no evidence against him. No specific role has been assigned against him. No incriminating fact has been mentioned in the report submitted by the District Probation Officer. If he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. He is languishing in remand home since 7.6.2018. The judgment and order dated 24.4.2019 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Farrukhabad as well as order dated 3.4.2019 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Farrukhabad are against the provision of law which are liable to be set aside.