SANDEEP KUMAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Ajay Kumar, the learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Anurag Verma, the learned AGA-I for the State and Sri Santosh Kumar Tripathi, the learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2.

(2.) By means of the instant revision filed under Sec. 397/401 Cr.P.C., the revisionist has challenged validity of an order dtd. 1/12/2020 passed by the Additional Session Judge/Special Judge POCSO Act, Lucknow in Criminal Appeal No. 251 of 2020 whereby the appeal was allowed, the order dtd. 9/10/2020 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board in Misc. Case No. 11/2020 arising out of Case Crime No. 2013 of 2015, under Sec. 302/120B IPC, Police Station Chinhat, Lucknow, was set aside and the matter was remitted to the Juvenile Justice Board to decide the age of the delinquent on the basis of his date of birth mentioned in his educational certificate, unless the same is not believable for any cogent reason, in accordance with the provision contained in Sec. 94 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015. The revisionist has also challenged validity of the order dtd. 22/12/2020 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board in the aforesaid case deciding the claim of juvenility of the accused in furtherance of the remand order dtd. 1/12/2020 and holding him to be a juvenile.

(3.) Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the revisionist had filed FIR No. 192/2015 in Police Station Chinhat, Lucknow under Ss. 302, 120-B IPC against the respondent no. 2 and his father Awadh Ram, alleging that the opposite party no. 2 is uncle of the revisionist, the revisionist's father had sold away some land for a very meager consideration, due to which the revisionist was annoyed and he came to the complainant's house at about 01:30 p.m. on 18/5/2015 and asked the revisionist's father that the temple's priest was calling him and he took the revisionist's father with him. The revisionist and his brother were also following them and they saw that the opposite party no. 2 assaulted the revisionist's father with a Banka (a sharp edged tool) on his neck. The revisionist alleged that the opposite party no. 2 had killed his father under a conspiracy with the father of the accused.