SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2018 Supreme(All) 1129

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
BEFORE : VIVEK KUMAR SINGH, J.
DHARMVEER ….Revisionist
Versus
STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER ….Respondents
(Criminal Revision No. 3599 of 2016, decided on 4th July, 2018)

Advocates:
Counsel :
Sunil Kumar Dubey for the Revisionist; A.G.A. and Rabindra Bahadur Singh for the Respondents.

Headnote:Limitation Act, 1963 – Section 5 – (Indian) Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302 – Condonation of delay – Criminal Appeal – Application – Rejection – There is no presumtion that delay in approaching Court is always deliberation – Delay before First Appellate Court on account of illness of mother of revisionist who was pursuing case – Certainly, it cannot be said that delay was enormous – O.P. No. 2 really has suffered no prejudice, and for slight inconvenience by respondent on account of delay in filing first appeal, O.P. No. 2 could have been compensated by way of costs – Impugned order set aside – Direction issued.

       Appeal Partly Allowed.

JUDGMENT :

Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh, J.

1. Heard Sri Sunil Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Rabindra Bahadur Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and Sri Om Prakash Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent.

2. The present revision is directed against the order dated 19.4.2014 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Agra in Case Crime No.249 of 2010, under Section 302 I.P.C., Police Station Kagaraol, District Agra as well as the order dated 4.8.2016 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.16, District Agra in Criminal Misc. Application No.312 of 2015, under Section 5 of the Limitation Act filed in support of Criminal Appeal No.nil of 2015 (Dharmveer Vs. State of U.P. and others), whereby the criminal appeal filed by the revisionist-herein has been dismissed as being barred by limitation, consequent upon the rejection of the application preferred by the appellant under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the first information report was registered against the revisionist and four other co-accused persons on 15.10.2010 as Case Crime No.249 of 2010, under Sections 147, 148, 307, 302 and 504 I.P.C., Police Station Kagaraol, District Agra, thereafter, inquest was conducted and the inquest report was prepared on 14.10.2010, thereafter, post-mortem report was prepared on 15.10.2010 in which one gunshot injury was found on the body of the deceased.

4. That up to parcha no. 5 dated 11.3.2010, investigation and remand was under section 304A, 201 I.P.C., thereafter the I.O. converted the case under section 302 I.P.C and after arrest in the aforesaid case an application for declaration of juvenile was moved by the mother of the revisionist namely Smt. Pooran Devi before the Juvenile Justice Board Agra on the ground that in the High-school mark-sheet date of birth of the revisionist is mentioned as 10.7.1994 and the alleged incident took place on 15.10.2010 and as such at the time of alleged incident the revisionist was minor and aged about 16 years. A photo copy of the High-school mark-sheet has been annexed as annexure no. 3 to this affidavit - 3 to the affidavit accompanying this revision.

5. That the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Agra by the order dated 20.7.2011 allowed the application of the revisionist and declared him juvenile and by the same order an application for conducting the medical examination report of the revisionist moved by the complainant has been rejected, a true/certified copy of the order dated 20.7.2011 passed by learned Juvenile Justice Board, Agra has been annexed as annexure no. 4 to this affidavit accompanying this revision.

6. That after declaration of the Juvenile bail application was moved on behalf of the revisionist before the learned Juvenile Justice Board Agra, and the same has been rejected by the Board vide order dated 9.8.2011, thereafter against the order dated 9.8.2011 the revisionist preferred an appeal before the learned Session Judge, Agra and the same has also been rejected by order dated 15.9.2011 by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court no. 5 Agra.

7. That against the order dated 9.8.2011 passed by Juvenile Justice Board Agra, as well as order dated 15.9.2011 revisionist preferred criminal revision before this Hon'ble Court with criminal revision no.4427 of 2011 and after inviting the counter affidavit the revision of the revisionist has been allowed by this Hon'ble Court and the order dated 9.8.2011 as well as order dated 15.9.2011 has been set aside and the revisionist has been released on bail, a copy of the order dated 24.11.2011 is annexed as annexure no.5 to this affidavit accompanying this revision.

8. That in the meantime against the order dated 20.7.2011 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Agra, the opposite party no. 2 also preferred an appeal before the learned Session Judge, Agra with criminal appeal no.225 of 2011 and by the order dated 14.5.2013 the learned Additional Sessions Judge partly al
















































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top