IMPORTANT POINT
The court's decision was influenced by the evidence from the Parivar Register and medical examination, which led to the rejection of the revisionist's claim of juvenility.

JUDGMENT :

SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

(Application Nos. 80656 & 80654 of 2020)

1. The applications seek recall of the order dated 05.07.2019 whereby the revision was dismissed in default, as well as conondation of delay in filing the application for recall of the order dated 05.07.2019.

2. It has been stated in the affidavits filed in support of the applications that clerk of the counsel for the revisionist had inadvertently omitted to mark the case in the cause list and, therefore, the revisionist’s counsel could not appear when the case was taken up and the revision was dismissed for non-prosecution. As the counsel was not aware about the listing of the case, the fact of its dismissal could not be known to him, which has resulted in a delay in filing application for recall of the order.

3. Cause shown in the affidavits for delay in filing the recall application as well as for non-appearance of the counsel for the revisionist is sufficient. Accordingly, both the applications are allowed.

4. The revision is restored to its original number.

(Order on Revision)

1. Heard Sri Sushil Kumar Singh Advocate, the learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Anurag Verma, the learned A.G.A. I for the State and Sri Himanshu Shukla holding brief of Sri Alok Singh, the learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2.

2. By means of the instant revision filed under Section 53 of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2000, the revisionist has assailed validity of the order dated 28.09.2013 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge IV, Sultanpur in Sessions Trial No. 398 of 2000, State vs. Paanchu and Others, arising out of Crime No. 410 of 2000 under Sections 323, 504, 302 IPC, Police Station Koorebhar, District Sultanpur, whereby the revisionist’s plea that he was a juvenile at the time of the incident and he should be tried accordingly, has been rejected.

3. An interim order was passed in the revision on 24.10.2013 providing that the trial Court may proceed with the trial, but the judgment will not be delivered. The revision was dismissed for want of prosecution on 05.07.2019 and the interim restraint on delivery of judgment in trial also came to an end. The learned Counsel for the revisionist has made a request for urgent hearing of the revision as the trial Court has fixed 26.02.2024 for delivery of judgment. Accordingly, the case was taken up out of its turn and submissions of the learned Counsel were heard immediately after restoration of the revision.

4. Case Crime No. 410 of 2000 was registered at 02:15 a.m. on 13.08.2000 against 4 persons, including the revisionist, stating that the accused persons are pattidars of the complainant, i.e. the complainant and the accused persons are descendents of a common ancestor. Due to a dispute that had started by some children having urinated in a lane, the accused persons started assaulting the complainant’s father and grand-father. The revisionist was armed with a pistol and the other persons were carrying sticks. The complainant, his mother and several other persons reached the spot upon hearing the hue and cry. The revisionist fired a shot with the intention to kill the complainant’s father. The bullet hit the complainant’s father on his neck and he died resultantly. The complainant caught hold of the revisionist whereupon the latter hit on his face with the butt of the pistol, ran inside his house and locked himself up from the inside. The other accused persons had assaulted the complainant and other persons with sticks and the revisionist had also suffered some injuries from sticks.

5. The police submitted a charge sheet under Sections 302, 504 and 325 I.P.C. The trial Court framed charges under Sections 302/34, 323/34 and 504 I.P.C. The trial proceeded and 10 prosecution witnesses were examined. The statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded on 31.03.2010, wherein the revisionist told his age to be 28 years. DW-1 was examined on 09.10.2012. After closure of defence evidence, additional s