SNEHA KUMARI Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the judgment and order dtd. 19/11/2021 passed by learned Special Judge (POCSO Act)/ Additional Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad, dismissing Criminal Appeal No. 101 of 2021 (Sneha Kumari @ Gungun versus State of U.P.), filed under Sec. 101 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (for short ''the Act') and affirming an order of Juvenile Justice Board, Ghaziabad dtd. 12/1/2021 refusing bail plea to the revisionist in Case Crime No. 67 of 2020, under Sec. 302 IPC, Police Station Link Road, District Ghaziabad.

(2.) Heard Shri Prashant Rai, the learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State and Shri Pradeep Kumar Rai, the learned counsel for opposite party No. 2 and perused the record.

(3.) Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that it is a case of circumstantial evidence. There is no independent eye witness of the alleged incident. The name of the revisionist surfaced in the statement of eye witness, namely, Smt. Naina Devi, who also in her statement had stated that she is not assured but there is some relations between the revisionist and co-accused, Jitendra, and they must have killed the deceased, who is the mother of the revisionist. The informant is the father of the revisionist who was in the State of Bihar at the time of incident and on the basis of statement of witness, Naina Devi, the F.I.R. was lodged against the revisionist and the co-accused, Jitendra.