Allahabad High Court
Rahish vs State Of U.P. And Another on 3 August, 2022
Author: Dinesh Kumar Singh
Bench: Dinesh Kumar Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Court No. - 10 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 517 of 2011 Revisionist :- Rahish Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Anjani Kumar Srivastava,Mr.Gyanendra Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.
1. This criminal revision under Section 53 of The Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2000 read with Section 397/401 CrPC has been filed by the by the accused-revisionist against the order dated 16.11.2011 passed by the Special Judge, S.C.S.T./Additional Sessions Judge, Lucknow in Criminal Appeal No. 58 of 2008, dismissing the appeal and upholding the order dated 15.01.2008 passed by the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Lucknow thereby sentencing the accused-revisionist for one year prison for the offence under Sections 323, 304 and 376 IPC read with Sections 3(2) (V) SC/ST Act lodged at Police Station Barasagvar, District Unnao.
2. Despite the revision being taken up in revise call, no one has appeared on behalf of the revisionist to press this revision.
3. Mr. Ranvijay Singh, learned Additional Government Advocate has assisted the Court in disposal of this revision.
4. As per the prosecution case, a complaint was given by mother of the prosecutrix, alleging therein that her daughter, who was dumb, from child-hood, was student of Class-VIII in Rani Krishna Convent School, Prithivikheda; she was raped by three persons, including the accused-revisionist; she disclosed this fact by giving names of three accused in writing to her mother; on the basis of the complaint, FIR No.045 of 1995 came to be registered under Sections 323 and 3(1)(X) SC/ST Act, later on, the prosecutrix died because of the injuries received by her and the charge-sheet was filed under Sections 323, 304 and 376 IPC read with Sections 3(2)(V) SC/ST Act.
5. The two Courts have concurrently held the revisionist guilty for committing the offence, however, he was given the benefit of juvenile and sentenced only for one year.
6. This Court has considered the two judgments and, looking at the heinousness, the fact that the minor dumb was raped by the three persons, including the accused-revisionist and does not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order. Thus, this revision, being without merit and substance, is hereby dismissed. The accused-revisionist shall be arrested forthwith and sent to prison to serve out the sentence awarded to him
7. Let a copy of this order be forwarded to the learned trial Court forthwith.
8. Let lower court record be sent back forthwith.
Order Date :- 3.8.2022 MVS/-