Allahabad High Court
Solu @ Subham Singh (Minor) vs State Of U.P. And Another on 13 November, 2017
Author: Prabhat Chandra Tripathi
Bench: Prabhat Chandra Tripathi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD A.F.R. Court No. - 17 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 4164 of 2016 Revisionist :- Solu @ Subham Singh (Minor) Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Praveen Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A., Ram Manohar Kashyap Hon'ble Prabhat Chandra Tripathi,J
1. Heard Sri Praveen Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist; Sri Ram Manohar Kashyap, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and perused the record.
2. The present criminal revision has been filed against the judgement and order dated 8.12.2016 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Ghazipur, whereby the learned Sessions Judge, Ghazipur has dismissed the Criminal Appeal No.73 of 2016 [Solu alias Shubham Singh (juvenile) through his father and natural guardian Mithlesh Kumar Singh Vs. State of U.P.] and confirmed the order dated 15.11.2016 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Ghazipur in Case Crime No.531 of 2016, under Sections 307 I.P.C. and Section 25/27 Arms Act, Police Station Mardah, District Ghazipur, whereby the Juvenile Justice Board, Ghazipur has rejected the bail application of Solu alias Shubham Singh (juvenile) son of Mithlesh Kumar Singh.
3. Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the order dated 15.11.2016 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Ghazipur and also the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Ghazipur dated 8.12.2016 are wrong, illegal and can not be sustained in the eyes of law. Learned counsel for the revisionist has also argued that the revisionist is in judicial custody w.e.f. 10.10.2016. It has been further argued that in the F.I.R., three persons were named as accused persons whereas there are only two injuries on the body of the injured person. It has also been argued that place of occurrence is different as mentioned in the F.I.R.
4. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has vehemently opposed the bail application and has submitted that it was the case of the juvenile that he went in the night at the place where Ram Leela was being conducted in the village from where he was apprehended by the police and thereafter, he was challaned in the present case.
5. The F.I.R. which is in Hindi vernacular is narrated as below:-
"Informant/injured Israil son of Subhani has presented a written application scribed by Shahnawaz Alam; before the Incharge of the Police Station Mardah, District Ghazipur that he was resident of Kodai, Police Station Mardah, Ghazipur that on date 9.10.2016 when he was sleeping at his door at 10:00 hours then (1) Indrajeet Singh son of Ramsoch Singh (2) Balwant Singh son of Kawaldhari Singh (3) Solu son of Mithlesh, were residents of his village Kodai approached at his door and injured him by firing 12 bore gun. Solu has fired the bullet, Indrajeet and Balwant were present on the scene of occurrence. The F.I.R. was lodged at Police Station Mardah on 9.10.2016 at 22:45 hours."
6. The injury report dated 10.10.2016 at 1:15 A.M. of Israil mentions following details of injuries:-
"(1) L.W. 7.0 cm x 8.0 cm x muscle deep over medial aspect of lt. elbow joint, bleeding present, advised x-ray.
(2) A fire arm injury wound entry inverted 2.0 cm over the lt. side of chest, 15.0 cm below from lt. nipple blackening, tattooing, colour of abrasion present, advised x-ray chest, USG-abdomen.
In the column of injury no.(1) (2) K/U/O. Duration of injuries fresh. Weapon/obejct used fire arm injury. Medico-legal examination concluded on the same date 10.10.2016 at 1:25 A.M."
7. I have gone through the Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. The relevant portion of Section 12 of the Act is quoted verbatim as follows:-
"12. Bail to a person who is apparently a child alleged to be in conflict with law-(1) When any person, who is apparently a child and is alleged to have committed a bailable or non-bailable offence, is apprehended or detained by the police or appears or brought before a Board, such person shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or in any other law for the time being in force, be released on bail with or without surety or placed under the supervision of a probation officer or under the care of any fit person:
Provided that such person shall not be so released if there appears reasonable grounds for believing that the release is likely to bring that person into association with any known criminal or expose the said person to moral, physical or psychological danger or the person's release would defeat the ends of justice, and the Board shall record the reasons for denying the bail and circumstances that led to such a decision."
8. I have also gone through the following judgments of this Court as well as of the Apex Court:-
"1. Monu @ Moni @ Rahul @ Rohit Vs. State of U.P., 2011 (61) ACR 2582.
2. Mohit Vs. State of U.P. and another, 2013 (83) ALLCC, 242.
3. Virendra Vs. State of U.P., 2015 (1) ACR 629.
4. Shabbir Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2015 (88) ALLCC 161.
5. Sonu Tomar Vs. State of U.P., 2015 (2) ACR 2284.
6. Amit Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2016 (93) ALLCC 571."
9. The Apex Court in the case of Om Prakash Vs. State of Rajasthan and another, (2012) 5 SCC 201 has cautioned the Courts to be more sensitive in dealing with juvenile in cases of serious nature like sexual molestation, rape, gang-rape murder etc. The relevant extract of the said judgment in paragraphs 3 and 23 are being reproduced below in reference:-
"3. Juvenile Justice Act was enacted with a laudable object of providing a separate forum or a special court for holding trial of children/juvenile by the juvenile court as it was felt that children become delinquent by force of circumstance and not by choice and hence they need to be treated with care and sensitivity while dealing and trying cases involving criminal offence. But when an accused is alleged to have committed a heinous offence like rape and murder or any other grave offence when he ceased to be a child on attaining the age of 18 years, but seeks protection of the Juvenile Justice Act under the ostensible plea of being a minor, should such an accused be allowed to be tried by a juvenile court or should he be referred to a competent court of criminal jurisdiction where the trial of other adult persons are held.
23. ....Similarly, if the conduct of an accused or the method and manner of commission of the offence indicates an evil and a well planned design of the accused committing the offence which indicates more towards the matured skill of an accused than that of an innocent child, then in the absence of reliable documentary evidence in support of the age of the accused, medical evidence indicating that the accused was a major cannot be allowed to be ignored taking shelter of the principle of benevolent legislation like the Juvenile Justice Act, subverting the course of justice as statutory protection of the Juvenile Justice Act is meant for minors who are innocent law breakers and not accused of matured mind who uses the plea of minority as a ploy or shield to protect himself from the sentence of the offence committed by him."
10. In the report, the District Probation Officer, Ghazipur has mentioned that juvenile was a student of class XI. His father was working as Conductor on contract basis in Roadways. Juvenile did not have any previous criminal antecedent. Juvenile needs care and protection of his guardian.
11. The order dated 15.11.2016 of the Juvenile Justice Board, Ghazipur mentions that juvenile has committed the alleged offence while he was in the domestic atmosphere, It has been also mentioned in the order that juvenile in conflict with law if released on bail then there are more chances of degradation of his moral, physical, mental and bodily development and psychological dangers and it would defeat the ends of justice.
12. Whereas in the order dated 8.12.2016 the learned Sessions Judge has dismissed the criminal appeal and affirmed the order dated 15.11.2016 of the Juvenile Justice Board, Ghazipur. The learned court of the Sessions Judge, Ghazipur has mentioned in its order dated 8.12.2016 that juvenile in conflict with law Solu alias Shubham Singh has fired on Israil and recovery of country made pistol and 12 bore empty cartridges were made from his possession.
13. The rider of the 'person's release would defeat the ends of justice' requires attention.
14. The 'juvenile in conflict with law' does not entitle him to be released on bail solely on the ground of his juvenility. The juvenile offenders who have criminal tendencies and have inclination and attraction to commit crime "at the drop of a hat", should be segregated and should not be integrated to set the shield of this benevolent legislation. It is of paramount importance to up-keep and safeguard the larger interest of the society. Due to this, exception to the rule of bail to a juvenile has also been included. A too liberal interpretation in the matters related to ghastly crimes would definitely result in defeating the ends of justice.
15. The relevant extract of the judgment in Virendra Vs. State of U.P., 2015 (1) ACR 629 para 23 is quoted below:-
"23. A citizen's claim to equality before the law is a claim of justice. Justice has been termed as the highest virtue. It has also been equated with fairness. Fairness connotes fairness to all i.e. equal treatment to all. Sense of injustice is a powerful human emotion. It is strongest when a person's own interests are harmed, but it also aroused in civilized people when they witness wrongs done to others. Ultimate object of every legal system is to secure justice which is at the centre of moral and social philosophy. The instinct for justice leads us to believe that right, and not might, is the true basis of society. The principles of justice that define duties and rights should be neutral with respect to compacting conception of good life. Defeat of ends of justice is bound to result in injustice which produces conflict within the individual and sets him at variance with himself and with all who are just. Injustice is inseparable from virtue which consist of ethics and justice in universal sense. Injustice in the particular sense is the injustice that causes harm to others. Virtue based approach connects justice to reflection about good life. This approach ensures that justice means giving people what they morally deserve-allocating goods to reward and promote virtue. It is thus apparent that the concept of justice lies at the heart of moral philosophy where righteousness, fairness and truth are the basic values and it should include people from all walks of life. Therefore, it is safe to conclude that wellbeing of the community takes precedence over the liberty and preventing injustice would always be a pursuit of justice. Leaving society to live with persons of perverted nature would be an affront to the dignity of human beings and tends to promote anarchy and unrest in society which is sure to defeat the ends of justice."
16. It would not be out of context to cite the paragraphs 376 and 377 of the extract of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Essa @ Anjum Abdul Razak Memon (A-3) and others Vs. The State of Maharashtra, through STF, CBI Mumbai and others, JT 2013 (6) SC1, which are quoted below:
"376. While dealing with such an issue, the court must not lose sight of the fact that meaning of "ends of justice" essentially refers to justice to all the parties. This phrase refers to the best interest of the public within the four corners of the statute. In fact, it means preservation of proper balance between the Constitutional/Statutory rights of an individual and rights of the people at large to have the law enforced. The "ends of justice" does not mean vague and indeterminate notions of justice, but justice according to the law of the land. (vide: State Bank of Patiala and others v. S.K. Sharma, MANU/SC/0438/1996: AIR 1996 SC 1669; and Mahadev Govind Gharge and others v. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Upper Krishna Project, Jamkhandi, Karnataka, MANU/SC/ 0597/2011: (2011) 6 SCC 321).
377. Thus, the law has to be interpreted in such a manner that it develops coherently in accordance with the principles, so as to serve, even-handedly, the ends of justice."
17. In the instant case Solu alias Shubham Singh (juvenile) has been named by the informant in the F.I.R. alongwith two other persons. It has been clearly mentioned in the F.I.R. that Solu alias Shubham Singh (juvenile) has fired the bullet. The injury report of the injured person Israil reveals that he was examined on 10.10.2016 at 1:15A.M. which proves that medical examination of the injured informant Insrail was conducted without any undue delay. Fire arm injury in the injury no.(2) blackening, tattooing, colour of abrasion were present which clearly shows that the shot was fired from the country made pistol from a very close range.
18. In revision under Section 397 Cr.P.C., the revisional court cannot analyse and interfere in the findings of fact of the lower courts and appellate jurisdiction is not available to the revisional court to interfere in the findings of fact recorded by the courts below.
19. In view of the above discussions, the impugned orders show that the courts below have considered the correctness, legality and propriety of the matter and did not act with any irregularity at the time of giving findings of fact relating to revisionist.
20. There is no illegality, perversity or infirmity in the impugned orders. The revision lacks merits and is liable to be dismissed.
21. The revision is, accordingly, dismissed on merits.
Order Date :- 13.11.2017 S.Sharma