STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Vs. RAMESH NAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order shall govern the disposal of both the cases mentioned above. These are references under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 1898, made bv the Fourth Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur, and the Fifth Additional Sessions Judge. Jabalpur. respectively recommendinp thettal orders, dated 30-31973 and 21-4-1973, passed bv the Juvenile Court. Jabalpur, in Criminal Case No. 120 of 1972 and Criminal Case No. 54 of 1973, respectively, committing the respective accused to stand his trial in the Sessions Court for an alleged offence under Section 376, I. P. C, be quashed on the ground that in view of the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Bal Adhiniyam. 1970. a Juvenile Court alone has the jurisdiction to hold an inquiry and consequently, the Sessions Court has no jurisdiction to proceed with the trial of the respective accused.

(2.) IN the present case, the two accused, Ramesh and Shivram alias Munna, who are boys aged about 14 and 11 vears respectively, were produced before the Juvenile Court, Jabalpur. presided over bv Kumari Sheela Khanna and Shrimati Bai-pai, Honorary Magistrate, for an alleged offence under Section 376, I. P. C. The prosecution allegation was that on 11-5-1972 at about 2 p. m. . the prosecutrix, Mst. Janak Dulari (P. W. 4) a eirl aaed about 10 vears was plaving in front of her house with other girls. The accused went there and took the prosecutrix in a room and committed rape on her. When the prosecutrix cried, both the accused ran awav. The prosecutrix related the incident to her mother and accordingly, the first-information-report was lodged at the police station on the same day. The defence of the accused was that they had been falsely implicated.

(3.) IN the connected case, namely. Criminal Revision No, 315 of 1973, the prosecution alleged that on 30-12-1972 the prosecutrix, Mst. Bhuribai, a girl aged about 7 vears. had gone to the jungle along with the accused, Onkar, At about 11 a. m. the accused committed a rape on her. The prosecutrix started bleeding. She reported the matter to her mother, Mst. Jeerabai (P. W. 4), who narrated the incident to her husband, Kalansingh, Kalansingh lodged the first-information-report with the Dolice, who carried on the investigation and put up a challan against the accused. The accused was medically examined and the Juvenile Court found his age to be between 14 to 15 years. As such, the Juvenile Court came to the conclusion that the accused was a child. But the Juvenile Court, instead of holding an inquirv against the delinquent child, as required by the Madhya Pradesh Bal Adhiniyam, 1970, committed him to stand his trial in the Sessions Court. When the accused appeared before the Sessions Court, the Additional Sessions Judge expressed the view that the case was exclusively triable bv a Juvenile Court and the Sessions Court had no jurisdiction to hold a trial. Hence these references bv the respective Additional Sessions Judges.