IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.
Ajay Bhuiyan @ Ajay Kumar Bhuiyan - Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand - Respondent
Cr.M.P. No. 561 of 2021
Decided on : 25-08-2021
Criminal Procedural Code, 1973 - Section 313, 161 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 376 - Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 - Section 18(3), 19, 19(3), 15 - Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Section 4 and 8 -Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 - Section 15 - Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Model Rules, 2016 - Rules 13(1) and 13(6) - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 165 – Rape - Procedure in relation to Children’s Court and Monitoring Authorities – Petition has been filed for quashing of order - Held, Court can also hold that there is no need to try the child as an adult - Even if Children’s Court holds that child has to be tried as an adult, it must ensure that final order includes an individual care plan for rehabilitation of child as specified in Subsection (2) of Section 19 - Furthermore, under Subsection(3) such a child must be kept in a place of safety and cannot be sent to jail till child attains age of 21 years, even if such a child has to be tried as an adult. It is also provided that though child may be tried as an adult, reformative services, educational services, skill development, alternative therapy, counselling, behaviour modification, and psychiatric support is provided to child during period the child is kept in place of safety - After considering judgments of Hon’ble Patna High Court, Hon’ble Delhi High Court and Hon’ble Supreme Court, no prejudice has been caused to petitioner in not passing any order under Section 19 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, put as an irregularity, which is curable and no interference is required - Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Heard Mr. Prashant Kumar Rahul, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. Vandana Singh, learned Sr. S.C.-III, learned counsel for the State.
2. This petition has been heard through Video Conferencing in view of the guidelines of the High Court taking into account the situation arising due to COVID-19 pandemic. None of the parties have complained about any technical snag of audio-video and with their consent this matter has been heard.
3. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed for quashing of the order dated 16.06.2020, passed by the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Latehar, whereby by way of invoking power under Section 18(3) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, transferred the trial of the case to the learned Children’s Court, Latehar and also for quashing of the order dated 29.01.2021, whereby the surrender-cum-bail petition, filed by the petitioner has been rejected. The prayer for quashing of the order dated 03.02.2021 has also been made, by which, charge has been re-framed under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as ‘POCSO Act’), in connection with Children Court Case No. 03 of 2020, pending in the Court of learned Additional sessions Judge-I-cum-Children’s Court, Latehar.
4. On the following premises, the case in question was lodged:-
The case has been instituted on the basis of the fardbeyan of the informant Reena Devi, alleging therein that she used to work as a cook in Rajhara Gurukul. It is further alleged that on 03.8.2017 at about 7.00 P.M., she along with her colleague Kaushlya Devi, wife of Rajesh Prasad Sao were cooking food for the children of the Gurukul then one Jitendra Singh, the student of the said Gurukul came there with Ajay Bhuiyan (petitioner). It is further alleged that at that time Ayushi Kumar @ Khushi was standing there then the said Ajay Bhuiyan told her to take food with him, thereafter, the said Ayushi ate food with the petitioner. Thereafter the informant went to bathroom after leaving them. It is further alleged that at about 8 P.M. when the informant saw that all the students of the Gurukul were eating food, but the said Ayushi was not there, thereafter she along with Kaushlya Devi, Awadhesh Munda, Gopal Munda and Jitendra Singh made hectic search for the said Ayushi and after finding no clue, the informant returned to Gurukul and further tried to search her, in the meantime at about 10.00 hrs. Ajay Bhuiyan and Ayushi were coming from Panchayat Bhawan situated at Gaushi College. On enquiry, the said Ayushi started weeping in the meantime, Ajay Bhuiyan also came there. The informant asked the reason for weeping from Ayushi, then Ayushi told that the said Ajay Bhuiyan assaulted her and was strangulating her. The said Ayushi also showed her private part indicating ache in her private part. It is also alleged that the informant found blood stained in the cloth of Ayushi and it was also found that the said Ajay Bhuiyan committed wrong with the said Ayushi. On the basis of these allegations, the instant case has been lodged against the petitioner under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 4/8 of the POCSO Act on 04.08.2017.
5. Mr. Prashant Kumar Rahul, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent. According to him, the petitioner was minor, aged about 17 years at the time of occurrence. He submitted that after investigation, chargesheet has been submitted on 31.08.2017 against the petitioner under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 4 of the POCSO Act. Charge was framed against the petitioner in both the sections on 05.4.2017. According to him after framing of charge, six witnesses have been examined on behalf of the prosecution. After examination of the prosecution witness, statement under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. was recorded on 07.11.2019 by the Court
Supdt. and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs v. Anil Kumar Bhunja
Shilpa Mittal Versus State (NCT of Delhi) & Ors.
Willie (William) Slanley Versus State of Madhya Pradesh (1955) 2 SCR 1140
The proceedings against a Child in Conflict with Law must comply strictly with statutory inquiry requirements for fair trial rights, or they may be quashed due to procedural violations.
Procedure provided under Sections 15 and 19 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 has been held to be mandatory.
The detention of a juvenile in an adult jail after being declared a juvenile contravenes the Juvenile Justice Act and constitutes a violation of constitutional rights, necessitating immediate correct....
The lack of compliance with mandatory procedural safeguards in juvenile trials invalidates the conviction, necessitating adherence to due process under the Juvenile Justice Act.
The court established that compliance with the procedural safeguards outlined in the Juvenile Justice Act is essential to protect the rights of children in conflict with the law, particularly regardi....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a juvenile accused should be dealt with under the provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, and the failure to do so renders any order uns....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that bail for a juvenile in conflict with law is a rule under the Act of 2015, and denial of bail is an exception that must be justified based on s....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.