Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
ANSHUMAN, J.
Baby Laxmi Bharti, D/o. Sri Rajesh Kumar - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Bihar & Ors. - Opposite Parties
Criminal Revision No. 1074 of 2019
Decided On : 15-03-2023
Juvenile Justice - Acquittal of Opposite Party No.2 to 4 - The court dismissed the Cr. Revision Application against the order of acquittal of Opposite Party No.2 to 4 by the Juvenile Justice Board, emphasizing that the trial under the Juvenile Justice Act amounts to trial of summons cases.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, who was the informant in the case, filed a Cr. Revision Application against the order of acquittal of Opposite Party No.2 to 4 by the Juvenile Justice Board.
Finding of the Court:
The court found no merit in the case after considering the provisions of Section 102 and Section 103 of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2015, and dismissed the Cr. Revision Application.
Issues: The issues involved were the declaration of Opposite Party No.2 to 4 as juvenile, the trial proceedings, and the contradiction in the evidences of witnesses leading to the failure of the case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that trials under the Juvenile Justice Act amount to trial of summons cases and found no question of legality or propriety involved in the case.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the Cr. Revision Application, upholding the order of acquittal of Opposite Party No.2 to 4 by the Juvenile Justice Board.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.2 to 4.
2. The present Cr. Revision Application has been filed against the order dated 18.06.2019 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Nalanda in J.J.B. Case No.138 of 2015, by which Opposite Party No.2 to 4 have been acquitted.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is informant in this case and on her F.I.R. the case has been lodged, in which, there are in total ten persons who were made accused. Learned counsel submits that out of total accused the case of three persons (Opposite Party No.2 to 4) were referred before the Juvenile Justice Board. The Juvenile Justice Board has declared the said opposite parties as Juvenile and trial has commenced against them. He further submits that opportunity was not granted to the petitioner to defend her case. He also submits that the provisions of appeal is not available, as such, she has preferred Cr. Revision under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2015.
4. Learned counsel for the State submits that from the impugned judgment dated 18.06.2019, it transpires that after declaration of Opposite Party No.2 to 4 as juvenile, they become the juvenile in conflicts with law, under the provision charges were framed, examination and cross-examination took place. Stage of Section 313 of Cr.P.C. has also been crossed. It has also been mentioned by counsel for the State that in the conclusion portion during cross-examination there is a strong contradiction in the evidences of witnesses and due to this contradiction the Court could not reached on the conclusiveness and, as such, the case failed.
5. Upon hearing the parties and after going through the provisions of Section 102 as well as Section 103 of Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2015, it transpires to the Court that neither any question of legality nor any question of propriety are involved in the present case. It is also clear under Section 103(1) of the J.J. Act that every trial under J.J. Act are amounts to trial of summons cases.
6. In this view of the matter, I found no merit in this case, therefore, the present Cr. Revision Application stands dismissed.
Trials under the Juvenile Justice Act amount to trial of summons cases, and questions of legality or propriety may not be involved in such cases.
The principle of presumption of innocence and the principle of equality and non-discrimination influenced the court's decision in allowing the Cr. Revision Application and setting aside the orders of....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the exclusive revisional powers vested with the High Court under the Juvenile Justice Act, the lack of jurisdiction of the Sessions Judge or Childr....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, and Section 401 of Cr.P.C. in determining....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of following the prescribed procedure for determining juvenility under the Juvenile Justice Act, including the specific inquiry proc....
Point of law: Thus it is law that a bail application of a juvenile can be rejected only :-(i) If there appears reasonable ground for believing that the release is likely to bring the juvenile into as....
For age determination in juvenile cases, documentary proof outweighs medical testing, as specified in Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015.
The court reaffirmed that age determination for juveniles must rely on credible documents, prioritizing educational certificates over voter lists.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
