Jharkhand High Court
Md. Ibral @ Md. Ibrar vs The State Of Jharkhand on 16 February, 2024
Author: Navneet Kumar
Bench: Navneet Kumar
1 Cr. Revision No.803 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No.803 of 2017
Md. Ibral @ Md. Ibrar ..... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Bibi Mehrun .... Opposite Parties
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR
For the Petitioner : Mr. Manoj Kr. Sah, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Shiv Shankar Kumar, APP
-----
11/16.02.2024 This criminal revision application is directed against the order dated 12.01.2015, passed by the learned lower appellant court of District & Additional Session Judge-II, Godda in Criminal Appeal No.125 of 2012/14 of 2014, whereby and where under, the criminal appeal preferred by the petitioner against the Enquiry order dated 31.08.2012 passed by learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Godda, finding guilty of the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 376/511 of Indian Penal Code, in connection with Meharama, Belbadda P.S. Case No.70 of 2010, corresponding to G.R. Case No.174 of 2010, Enquiry Case No.17 of 2012 and ordered for sent the Juvenile / petitioner to Special Home for a period of one and half years, was dismissed. Further it was directed that the period undergone in the judicial shelter, if any, at Observation Home, has been directed to be set off.
2. The prosecution case in short as per the averments of the fardbeyan of one Bibi Meharun regarding the alleged occurrence recorded by the then officer in charge of Belbudda, police station on 2 Cr. Revision No.803 of 2017 15.2.2010 at 13.45 hours is that she had gone to purchase shampoo on 15.2.2010 at about 12.30 hours at the shop of Md. Naim. She has further stated that Md. Ibrar i.e. the present juvenile was sitting at the shop and no other customer was there. She has further stated that Ibarar caught the lower portion of her saari seeing her alone and tried to take away her inside the house, whereupon she shouted for rescue. She has further stated that Md. Ibarar, thereafter caught her hands, threw her upon the earth and tried to rape her, whereupon she opposed and she, anyhow, made herself free from his clutch. She has further stated that she thereafter jumped into a well in his Aangan for rescuing herself. Thereafter, the adjacent people came there and brought out her from the well. She has further stated that if she did not jump in the well, she could not have saved her prestige. She has also stated that her Saari was also torn of in the scuffle.
3. On the basis of the fardbeyan of the informant, Meharma (Belbadda) P.S. Case No.17 of 2010 was registered for the offence punishable under Sections 376/511 of the I.P.C against the present juvenile and the police after investigation, submitted the charge-sheet against the present juvenile, whereupon the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Godda took cognizance for the offence punishable under Sections 376/511 of the I.P.C against the present juvenile on 11.03.2010 and further sent the case record pertaining to the present juvenile to the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Godda. 3 Cr. Revision No.803 of 2017
4. It is relevant to mention here that the present juvenile was declared as juvenile on 10.3.2010 by the Court of learned C.J.M. and the juvenile appeared before J.J. Board and he was supplied with a copy of police papers on 15.4.2010. Thereafter, he was also explained the substance of accusation for the offence punishable under Sections 376/511 of the I.P.C in Hindi on the same date, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed inquiry into the matter and the learned, Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board after conducting the enquiry under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection Of Children), Act, 2000, held the petitioner guilty for the offence punishable under sections 376/511 of the IPC and thereafter, the petitioner was sent to the special home for a period of one and half years under section 15(1) (G) of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection Of Children), Act, 2000 and the period already under gone in the judicial shelter, if any, at Observation Home is directed to be set off.
5. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order of the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board passed on 31.08.2012 preferred the appeal before learned Appellate Court below whereby, the learned appellate Court below dismissed the Appeal and order passed by the learned, Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Godda on 31.8.2012 was upheld vide Judgment dated 12.01.2015 and accordingly, the, petitioner had preferred this criminal revision against the judgment dated 12.01.2015 passed by the learned appellate court, by which the order of the Juvenile justice board passed on 4 Cr. Revision No.803 of 2017 31.08.2012, in G.R. case No. 174 of 2010, Enquiry case No. 70 of 2012 was affirmed and the petitioner was held guilty for the offence punishable under sections 376 / 511 of the IPC and he was sent to special home for a period of one and half years under section 15(1)(G) of the Juvenile justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, which is under challenge.
6. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned APP appearing on behalf of the State.
7. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that this petitioner was a juvenile, within the meaning of Juvenile justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 at the time of commission of the offence and he was found guilty for the offence punishable under sections 376 / 511 of the IPC and accordingly he was sent for a period of one and half years under section 15(1)(G) of the Juvenile justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, to the Special Home, which was confirmed by the learned Appellate Court below.
8. Further, it has been submitted that the petitioner does want to argue this case on merit, under which, the Juvenile has been held child in conflict with law for the offence punishable under sections 376/511 of the IPC and therefore he is confining his argument only on the point under which, the petitioner was sent to special home for a period of one and half years. It has further been pointed out that the petitioner is a Juvenile at the time of the commission of the offence and his mind 5 Cr. Revision No.803 of 2017 was not so mature to determine, what is right and what is wrong and therefore, the alleged offence is said to have been committed.
9. Further, it has also been submitted that the learned courts below i.e. the court of the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board and the learned Lower Appellate Court did not appreciate the fact that there was no independent witness in this case and only on the basis of the deposition of interested witnesses, the petitioner has been held to be Juvenile in conflict with law for the offence punishable under sections 376/ 511 of the IPC. Further it is also be submitted that there is no criminal history against this petitioner and this petitioner has already remained in judicial custody for a period of 03 months 20 days including the pre enquiry period and the post enquiry period and therefore, a lenient view may be taken, in which this petitioner has been sent to the special home for a period of one and half years.
10. On the other hand, learned APP appearing on behalf of the State opposed the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner and submitted that the petitioner being a Juvenile in conflict with law has committed a serious offence punishable under section 376 / 511 of the IPC and at the time of commission of the offence, he was more than 15 years and therefore, the petitioner does not deserve any lenient view in awarding the sentence, under which, the order has been passed by both the courts below that is to be sent to the special home for a period of one and half years. Though, the learned APP did not deny this fact that the petitioner doesn't want to argue this case on merit and 6 Cr. Revision No.803 of 2017 therefore, the order of the guilt of the juvenile in conflict with law (petitioner) be confirmed and further on the point of order for sending the petitioner for one and half years to special home be modified, in view of the fact that there is no criminal history against the Juvenile at the time of the commission of the offence.
11. Heard the parties, perused the record of this case.
12. It is found that the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner does not want to argue on the point of merit, under which juvenile in conflict with law was held guilty for the offence punishable under sections 376 / 511 of the IPC and he is confining his argument only on the point of the order, under which, petitioner has been sent to the special home for a period of one and half years.
13. Accordingly, this Court upholds the Judgment dated 31.08.2012 passed by learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, by which, this petitioner (Juvenile in conflict with law) has been found guilty for the offence punishable under sections 376 / 511 of the Indian Penal Code and the Judgment dated 12.01.2025 passed by the lower Appellate Court.
14. So far as the order, under which, this petitioner, being a Juvenile in conflict with law has been sent to special home for one and half years is concerned, it is found that at the time of the commission of the offence, there is no criminal history against this petitioner and the petitioner has already remained in judicial custody for a period of about 4 months (3 months 20 days) and as such, in the facts and 7 Cr. Revision No.803 of 2017 circumstances of this case, it is found that no useful purpose would be served by sending him in special home again for spending the remaining period as awarded by the learned courts below.
15. Accordingly, this Court set-aside the order, under which, this Juvenile petitioner has been sent to special home for a period of one and half years and it is modified to the extent, i.e., this petitioner is sent to the special home for a term of the period already underground by him in special home.
And further a direction is given to the learned Court below to allow this petitioner to come home after counseling of the child and appropriate steps for providing reformative services, including education, skill development, counseling, behavior modification therapy and psychiatric support at least for a period of 3 months and in this regard the concerned learned Juvenile Justice Board is directed to take the help of the Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, Godda for a proper counseling and reformative services of this petitioner for 3 months from the date of the receipt of this order.
16. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Application is disposed with the aforesaid observations.
17. Let a copy of this order be sent to the courts below for its compliance in letters and spirit.
(Navneet Kumar, J.) R.Kumar