Point of Law: Criminal Revision - Scope of criminal revision is very limited.

JUDGMENT :

1) This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 15.12.2017 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Udhampur [hereinafter referred to as “the Trial Court”] in Challan titled State v. Begum, arising out of FIR No.60/2014, whereby respondent No.2, a juvenile, has been exonerated from the enquiry and absolved from the person and surety bonds, on the following grounds:

i) The impugned judgment is unsustainable in law, as the Trial Court exonerated the delinquent juvenile merely on technical grounds.

ii) The Trial Court after noticing various defects in the investigation conducted by the police, should have directed further investigation in the matter instead of exonerating respondent No.2.

iii) The investigation in the case has been conducted in a biased manner because despite informing the Investigating Officer that son of the petitioner has been murdered by Irshad Ali, Sher Ali, Bahadar, Miyon and others, they were not apprehended by the police.

2) Briefly stated, the facts leading to the filing of this revision petition are that on 05.07.2014, Police of Police Post Ghordi came to know from reliable sources that a dead body was lying in the thoroughfare. The deceased was identified as Shattu S/o Yousaf, Caste Gujjar R/o Gadian Danaas Teshil Chanani. The dead body was taken into custody. Post-mortem on the dead body was got conducted. A docket in this regard was sent by the Incharge Police Post Gordhi, to S.H.O. Police Station, Ramnagar. Upon receipt of information, FIR No.60/2014 under Section 302 RPC was registered at Police Station Ramnagar and the investigation set in motion. The investigation had been conducted by Inspector Deepak Pathania, the then SHO, Police Station, Ramnagar. The delinquent juvenile was taken into custody on 29.08.2014. On disclosure, cloth string and one shawl, which was used by the accused in committing the murder, were seized. After completing the investigation, charge sheet for enquiry was presented before the Trial Court on 01.10.2014.

3) The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined as many as 19 prosecution witnesses out of the listed 27 witnesses. The accused did not lead any evidence in defence. The Trial Court, after evaluating the prosecution evidence, has concluded that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove the guilt of the delinquent juvenile beyond the pale of doubt and, accordingly, exonerated her from the enquiry with the following observations:-

“The delinquent juvenile is the age of 17 years at the time of occurrence. The physical appearance of the delinquent juvenile at that time is weak.

There is a distinction between physical age and mental age. The delinquent juvenile belongs to the Nomada family viz. Gujjar. For argument sake, a Nomada residing in jungles of far flung area of Ramnagar which consists of mountainous terrain is subjected to the homicide of well built person. The statement recorded by the IO reveals that there is no scuffle mark on the body of the deceased. It is natural death if someone is strangulated and tied forcibly, certainly, there will be a resistance and bruises mark over the body of the deceased, those are not appearing. The IO has stated that delinquent juvenile has killed the deceased with the string. If the deceased was strangulated with the string, certainly it needs the force and there shall be an alarming voice of the deceased noticed by the people. The place of occurrence is an isolated place and no one has stated that delinquent juvenile has ever seen lastly with the deceased. Noteable link is missing. The physical age apparent in the charge sheet is 17 years and there is not an iota of evidence which suggests that delinquent juvenile was ever residing with the deceased and was ever seen with the deceased before the death crept a doubt in the mind of the court for fair investigation conducted by the IO. It is further apt to observe that if the deceased was strangulated, his eyes app