Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
JYOTSNA SHARMA, J.
Ram Lakhan – Appellant
Versus
State Of U.P. And Others – Respondents
Criminal Revision No.4181 of 2022
Decided on : 07-03-2024
J.J. Act, 2015 - Child in Need of Care and Protection - Sections 363, 366, 376(3) I.P.C., Section ¾ of POCSO Act - Section 104, Rule 79, Rule 82A of J.J. Act, 2015 Model Rules
Fact of the Case:
The case involves a revisionist challenging the orders directing a minor to be kept in a child care institution and rejecting the application for custody. The victim's age and marital status were disputed, and the revisionist sought her release based on medical certificate and her expressed desire to be with him.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the child was detained without proper determination of age and declaration as a child in need of care and protection. It noted the failure to follow the procedure for age determination and the casual manner in which the orders were passed.
Issues: The key issues included the detention of a minor in a child care institution, determination of age, and the proper application of the J.J. Act, 2015 and its Model Rules.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for proper determination of age and declaration as a child in need of care and protection, as per the J.J. Act, 2015 and its Model Rules. It highlighted the provisions for release and aftercare of children in need of care and protection upon attaining 18 years of age.
Final Decision: The revision was allowed, and the impugned orders were set aside. The matter was remanded back to the Child Welfare Committee to pass a fresh order in accordance with the law.
JUDGMENT :
Sri Rahul Mishra, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Narendra Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State are present.
Order on Criminal Misc. Amendment Application No. 5 of 2024
An amendment application has been filed on behalf of the revisionist seeking amendment in the prayer clause.
The amendment application is allowed.
Let necessary amendment be carried out during the course of the day.
Order on Criminal Revision
1. This criminal revision by revisionist Ram Lakhan has been filed against O.P. No. 2 Sangeeta Devi and four others challenging the order dated 26.03.2022 by which the victim was directed to be kept in a child care institution and further the order dated 10.05.2022, by which the application for obtaining custody of the victim was rejected by C.W.C. By means of this revision a further prayer has been made by the revisionist to set aside the order dated 26.08.2022 passed by lower appellate court in Criminal appeal no. 32 of 2022 (Ram Lakhan Vs. State of U.P. and others) arising out of case crime no. 05 of 2022, under sections 363, 366, 376(3) I.P.C. and section ¾ of POCSO Act, by which the appeal filed challenging the order dated 10.05.2022, has been dismissed.
2. The facts relevant for the purpose of this revision are as below:
(i) Sangeeta Devi lodged an F.I.R. naming Ram Lakhan (the instant revisionist) with the allegation that he enticed away his 14 years old daughter. The matter came under investigation and the victim got recovered. In her statement under section 161 Cr.P.C., she in essence stated that she has been in love relationship with Ram Lakhan since last two years and that her mother Sangeeta Devi arranged her marriage with Ram Lakhan but her father objected to such a marriage. In these circumstances she went to Pune with him and they were staying there as husband and wife. She stated her age as 15 years in the statement recorded on 20.03.2022 by the I.O.
(ii) Her statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded three days after the statement recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C., in which she said that she is 18 year in age and that she voluntarily got married to Ram Lakhan and has been staying with him. She further said that she is his wife and is willing to stay with Ram Lakhan only and that she has pregnancy of two months. She also stated that false mark sheets have been prepared to show her below 18 years.
(iii) As per the report of CMO, Fatehpur, she was about 19 years in medical opinion.
(iv) by the impugned order dated 26.03.2022 passed by the C.W.C., she was directed to be kept in a women protection home at Khuldabad, Prayagraj. Revisionist- the alleged husband moved an application but the same was dismissed by C.W.C by another impugned order dated 10.05.2022. The order dated 10.05.2022 was challenged by Ram Lakhan by filing a criminal appeal no. 32 of 2022, which too has been dismissed. Now, the revisionist Ram Lakhan is before this Court in this criminal revision filed under section 102 of the J.J. Act, 2015 and has challenged all the three orders.
3. It is submitted by the revisionist that C.W.C completely ignored the medical certificate showing her as 19 years and instead illegally relied upon education paper of primary school, against the provisions of J.J. Act, 2015. Neither a matriculation nor education certificate or some school leaving certificate has been produced before the CWC. The victim categorically expressed her desire to go with her husband Ram Lakhan, as is very clear from the statement given by her under section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. She is detained in a women home against her consent. He further submitted that she is above 18 years as per medical certificate and even if she is treated as minor at the time of entry in that institution, she has become adult now and should be set free.
4. Further important submission from the side of the revisionist is that she has given birth to a child and the child now requires special care, therefore,
Proper determination of age and declaration as a child in need of care and protection is essential for the detention of minors in child care institutions, and the J.J. Act, 2015 provides for release ....
The main legal point established is the temporary nature of detention in a protection home for a child in need of care and protection under the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, and the wide powers of the ....
Offence of Rape – Determination of Age - As per statutory mandate of S. 94(2) of J.J. Act, primacy is to be accorded to date of birth certificate from school or matriculation or equivalent certificat....
A child rescued under the Immoral Traffic Prevention Act must be treated as a victim needing care, not returned to a parent with allegations of exploitation.
Custody of daughter – Child cannot be handed over to mother who is allegedly using her daughter in prostitution racket.
where it was found on enquiry that educational certificates were fabricated or manipulated, the Court could discard the date of birth as reflected therein.
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
