ATIN JAISWAL Vs. SATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) REVISIONIST Atin Jaiswal has come up to this court in it's revisional jurisdiction u/s 53, Juvenile Justice Care and Protection Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 3.1.2011, passed by Additional Session's Judge/Fast Track Court court no.3, Kanpur Nagar, in S.T. No.260 of 1998, State Vs. Atin Jaiswal & others, relating to Crime No.264 of 1997,u/s 302 I.P.C., Police Station Pheelkhana, District Kanpur Nagar, by which order three applications preferred by the revisionist, being application no.76 dated 29.1.2002, application no.176 Kha dated 18.1.2010 and application no.186 Kha dated 24.5.2010 were considered and disposed off by the trial Judge, who held that the revisionist is not a juvenile nor can he be treated as such nor his trial can be separated from other accused. Before delving and deliberating on contentious issues, a brief resume of preceding facts indicate that the revisionist along with his other compatriot assailants, Vishal Kumar Chaurasia and Vishal Jaiswal, indulged into a verbal tirade on the question of consuming non-vegetarian meal, on 21.12.1997 at 8.45 p.m., and in the midst of this verbal onslaught, revisionist whisked out a country-made pistol and shot dead Purshottam by firing on his temple from point blank range. Sustaining fatal gunshot injury, dead Purshottam squatted on the ground. Throwing away his pistol, all the three accused escaped from the incident scene.

(2.) FATHER Ram Ji Das Jaiswal scribed incident F.I.R., covered a distance of one and a half kilometres to Police Station Pheelkhana, District Kanpur Nagar, where he lodged his written FIR at 9.30 p.m. same day as Crime No.64 of 1997 under Section 302 IPC against the three named accused Vishal Kumar Chaurasia, Vishal Jaiswal and Atin Jaiswal (revisionist). Crime was investigated and ultimately it culminated in charge sheeting all the three accused. Following the procedure laid down in Cr.P.C., in short code, for police challani cases, after compliance of Section 207 of the Code, case of accused was committed to Session's court for trial, where it was registered as S.T. No.260 of 1998, State Vs. Atin Jaiswal and others. Accused were charged with offences u/s 302 IPC.

(3.) BESIDES above objections both the sides relied upon various judicial pronouncements by the Supreme Court and High courts, to countenance their submissions which are referred to in the impugned order. Ld. Trial Judge, vide common impugned order dated 3.1.2011, decided all the three applications, viz Annexure No.2, application dated 18.1.2010 and Annexure No.4 against the revisionist and negated his claim of being declared to be a juvenile, and resultantly dismissed his prayer for separating his trial from rest of the accused and transferring it to the Board. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, revisionist has approached this court in the instant revision u/s 53 of the Act.