Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH
Pankaj Bhandari, J.
Aishveer Singh - Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan - Respondent
Criminal Revision No. 1173 of 2018
Decided On : 31-08-2018
Juvenile Justice Care and Protection of Children Act, 2015 - Section 12 – Contention - Mental retardation - Petition aggrieved by order passed by Juvenile Justice Board whereby application filed by petitioner under Section 12 of Juvenile Justice Act was rejected and against order - His contention is that petitioner was aged years months at time of alleged offence and report has been submitted that petitioner was aware of consequence of act and proceedings against him are being carried out under Section 15 of Act - It is also argued that proviso to Section 12 would be attracted in this case as prosecutrix is a minor girl who is special child having mild mental retardation – Held, It is true that gravity of offence is not to be looked into but equally it is true that proviso of Section 12 of Act would be attracted where Court comes to conclusion that release of petitioner would defeat ends of justice - Present is case where a minor child who is mental retardation has been gang raped and prosecutrix has named present petitioner - Release of petitioner who as per report was understanding consequence of alleged act would definitely defeat ends of justice - Petition is rejected
JUDGMENT
Pankaj Bhandari, J. - Petitioner through his father has preferred this revision petition aggrieved by order dated 15.06.2018 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Dholpur whereby application filed by the petitioner under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act was rejected and against order dated 27.06.2018 passed by Special Judge SC/ST Prevention of Atrocity Cases whereby appeal preferred by the appellant was rejected.
2. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that Section 12 is mandatory and gravity of the offence is not to be looked into while deciding an application under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Care and Protection of Children Act, 2015. Petitioner has placed reliance on Anita Kumari & Anr. vs. State of Rjajasthan reported in 2017 (2) WLC (Raj.) 272.
3. Counsel for complainant has opposed the revision petition. His contention is that petitioner was aged 17 years 08 months at the time of alleged offence and report has been submitted that petitioner was aware of the consequence of the act and proceedings against him are being carried out under Section 15 of the Act. It is also argued that the proviso to Section 12 would be attracted in this case as the prosectrix is a minor girl who is the special child having mild mental retardation.
4. I have considered the contentions.
5. It is true that gravity of offence is not to be looked into but equally it is true that the proviso of Section 12 of the Act would be attracted where the Court comes to the conclusion that release of the petitioner would defeat the ends of justice. Present is case where a minor child who is mental retardation has been gang raped and prosecutrix has named the present petitioner. Release of petitioner, who as per report was understanding consequence of the alleged act would definitely defeat the ends of justice. Further his release would have a serious impact on the retarded young girl who has not yet deposed before the Court. Hence, I am not inclined to entertain the revision petition.
6. The criminal revision petition is rejected.
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
