# Amarjeet Revisionist v. State of U.P. & Ors - **Citation:** (2022) 4 ILRA 607 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2022-04-04 - **Case number:** Criminal Revision No. 758 of 2021 - **Bench:** Brij Raj Singh - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/amarjeet-revisionist-v-state-of-u-p-ors-48277 - **Pages:** 4 ## Headnote A. Criminal Law - The Court did not find any irregularity in the order dated 26.03.2019 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Sultanpur wherein the public prosecutor in compliance with the government order dated 25.06.2014 moved an application under Section 321 Cr.P.C. withdrawing the pending case against the juvenile opposite parties. The application for withdrawal was moved in good faith keeping in mind the future of the children. (Para 14) Revision Rejected. (E-10) List of Cases cited:- ## Text 4 All. Amarjeet Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 607 15. In State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Raghubir Singh (1993) 2 SCC 622, this Court held that there is no legal compulsion to look for any other evidence to corroborate the evidence of the prosecutrix before recording an order of conviction. Evidence has to be weighed and not counted. Conviction can be recorded on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix, if her evidence inspires confidence and there is absence of circumstances which militate against her veracity. 16. A similar view has been reiterated by this Court in Wahid Khan Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2010) 2 SCC 9, placing reliance on earlier judgment in Rameshwar Vs. State of Rajasthan AIR 1952 SC 54. 17. In another case the Supreme Court in Phool Singh Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh [Criminal Appeal No. 1520 of 2021, decided on 01.12.2021], has taken the similar view in respect of the sole testimony of the prosecutrix, which follows as under: "5.1 At the outset, it is required to be noted that in the present case, the prosecutrix has fully supported the case of the prosecution. She has been consistent right from the very beginning. Nothing has been specifically pointed out why the sole testimony of the prosecutrix should not be believed. Even after thorough cross-examination, she has stood by what she has stated and has fully supported the case of the prosecution. We see no reason to doubt the credibility and/or trustworthiness of the prosecutrix. The submission on behalf of the accused that no other independent witnesses have been examined and/or supported the case of the prosecution and the conviction on the basis of the sole testimony of the prosecutrix cannot be sustained is concerned, the aforesaid has no substance." 18. So far the other arguments advanced by learned counsel for the revisionist that the material of the charge-sheet should be taken into consideration, does not conspire confidence. In my opinion, the statement of prosecutrix against the accused-revisionist is clear and there is no iota of doubt. The order passed by the Court below needs no interference and there is no need to discuss the other material filed by the I.O. while filing the report before the court below. The plea of alibi will be subject to further evidence and at this moment, I cannot infer that the revisionist was absent and he had gone to Delhi because the evidences to that effect are subject to further examination before the trial court. It is also a settled law that in case of heinous crime like rape, a single testimony of the prosecutrix is sufficient for conviction. 19. In such circumstances, the impugned order dated 03.07.2013 does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity and is based upon relevant considerations and supported by cogent reasons,hence requires no interference by this Court. The revision is accordingly dismissed. However, it is made clear that the court below will not be influenced with any observations made by this Court. 20. Office is directed to communicate this order to the court below for necessary compliance, forthwith. ---------- (2022)04ILR A607 REVISIONAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: LUCKNOW 04.04.2022 BEFORE THE HON'BLE BRIJ RAJ SINGH, J. Criminal Revision No. 758 of 2021 Amarjeet ...Revisionist Versus State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents Counsel for the Revisionist: Vivekanand Misra, Ravindra Kumar Dwivedi 608 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES Counsel for the Respondents: G.A., Rama Pati Shukla A. Criminal Law - The Court did not find any irregularity in the order dated 26.03.2019 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Sultanpur wherein the public prosecutor in compliance with the government order dated 25.06.2014 moved an application under Section 321 Cr.P.C. withdrawing the pending case against the juvenile opposite parties. The application for withdrawal was moved in good faith keeping in mind the future of the children. (Para 14) Revision Rejected. (E-10) List of Cases cited:- 1. Ram Narayan Yadav Vs St. of U.P. & Ors. Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 10816 of 2015 2. V.L.S. Finance Ltd. Vs S.P. Gupta & anr. (2016) 3 SCC 736 3. Bairam Murlidhhar Vs St. of A.P. AIR 2014 SC 3437 (Delivered by Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh, J.) 1. Heard Sri R.K.Dwivedi, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Rama Pati Shukla, learned counsel for the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 and Sri Anurag Verma, learned AG.A. for the State and perused the record. 2. This Criminal Revision has been filed against the judgment and order dated 26.03.2019 passed by learned Juvenile Justice Board, District-Sultanpur in Juvenile Case No.83 of 2013 arising out of Case Crime No. 668 of 2012, under Section 325, 323, 504, 427, 352 of I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(X) of S.C./ S.T. Act, Police Station- Kurwar, District Sultanpur "State versus Amar Bahadur and another" as well as order dated 24.08.2021 passed by Sessions Judge, Sultanpur in Criminal Appeal No.37 of 2021 "Amarjeet versus State of U.P. and others". 3. The State of U.P. had issued Government Order on 25.06.2014 addressed to the District Magistrate, Sultanpur, in which decision has been taken that after looking into the facts and circumstances, the State Government has decided to withdraw the Case Crime No.668/2012, under Section 325, 323, 504, 427, 352 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(x) SC/S.T.Act, Police Station-Kurwar, District-Sultanpur. The said Government Order further envisages that Government has taken decision to direct the Public Prosecutor to withdraw the case in the court. 4. In pursuance of the Government Order dated 25.06.2014, the application dated 12.02.2015 was filed under Section 321 Cr.P.C. to the effect that aforesaid case pending against the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 may be withdrawn. It is stated in the application that the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 are juvenile. Therefore, in the interest of justice, it would be appropriate that the case may be withdrawn so that they may come in the main stream of the society. The application further indicates that in the interest of society, it is needed that the opposite party nos. 2 and 3, being child, may not be prosecuted. It is further mentioned in the application that it is a case of sudden quarrel and by persuing the present case, their future will be hampered. 5. On the said application under Section 321 Cr.P.C., the case was heard by the Court of Juvenile Justice Board on 26.03.2019 and the application was allowed acquitting opposite party nos. 2 and 3 from 4 All. Amarjeet Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 609 the charges. Being aggrieved against the order dated 26.03.2019, the revisionist filed an appeal before District Court, Sultanpur, which was also dismissed on 24.08.2021 by the Sessions Judge, Sultanpur. Being aggrieved against both the orders, the present revision has been preferred before this Court. 6. Prior to discussing the merits of the case, I have to discuss the order dated 24.08.2021 passed by the District and Sessions Judge, Sultanpur. The District & Sessions Court, Sultanpur has held that against the order dated 26.03.2019, the appeal is not maintainable. It is noted here that there is provision of revision under Section 102 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act 2015(hereinafter referred to as the Act of 2015). The power of revision under Section 102 of the Act of 2015 is similar to power under Section 397 Cr.P.C.. Once the revision is provided against the order of Juvenile court under Section 102 of the Act of 2015, there was no occasion to the revisionist to file appeal against the order dated 26.03.2019. Therefore, the order passed by the Sessions Court dated 24.08.2021 is perfectly alright and needs no interference. 7. The revisionist has challenged the order dated 26.03.2019, which is the order passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Sultanpur and, admittedly, he was pursuing the remedy before the Sessions Court, Sultanpur in appeal, which was not maintainable. Therefore in the revisional jurisdiction of Section 102, I am going to look into the legality of the order dated 26.03.2019. 8. Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the order passed by the Court of Juvenile Justice Board dated 26.03.2019 is not sustainable in the eyes of law because the court below has not applied its mind and the nature of the crime is serious. It has been further argued that Public Prosecutor is required to act in good faith, which was not done in the present case. 9. Learned counsel for the revisionist has relied on three judgements, Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.10816 of 2015(Ram Narayan Yadav versus State of U.P. & Others, V.L.S. Finance Limited versus S.P.Gupta and another; (2016) 3 SCC 736 and Bairam Muralidhar versus State of Andhra Pradesh; AIR 2014 SC 3437 in support of his submissions. 10. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent no.2 and 3 Sri R.P. Shukla has argued that as per Section 2 (15)(33), the definition Clause of Act of 2015 itself is supporting the case of the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 and being children, friendly behaviour was required so that they may make their good future and become good citizen of the country. Therefore he submitted that the Board has not committed any error. 11. Sri Anurag Verma, learned A.G.A. has submitted that the revisional power under Section 102 of the Act of 2015 is akin to Section 397 of Cr.P.C.. He submitted that the Court can only look into the legality and perversity of the order passed by the court below. He further submitted that the Public Prosecutor has acted in good faith by applying his mind and he moved detailed application to withdraw the case under Section 321 Cr.P.C.. He further submitted that the Government Order dated 25.06.2014 is the Government Order issued by the State of U.P. after due consideration and the Public 610 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES Prosecutor was directed to file application and, thus,there is no illegality and infirmity in the procedure for withdrawal of the case under Section 321 Cr.P.C. 12. In the present case, it is admitted on record that opposite party nos. 2 and 3 have been declared juvenile by the Court of Juvenile Justice Board. The opposite party no.2 was declared aged about 15 years 5 months on the date of the incident, i.e., on 11.07.2012. The purpose of Act 2015 is very relative in the present case, wherein it is provided that the accused children should be given friendly atmosphere and their future interest should be paramount. Both the children i.e. opposite party nos. 2 and 3 were school going and their future may have been hampered, in case, criminal cases were to be allowed for trial. 13. The judgement cited by learned counsel for the revisionist (supra) have no relevance in the present case. In the case of V.L.S. Finance Limited versus S.P.Gupta and another, the Court has pronounced that while dealing with application preferred under section 321 Cr.P.C., the Public Prosecutor is required to act in good faith. Similar view has been expressed in case of Bairam Muralidhar versus State of Andhra Pradesh and Ram Narayan Yadav versus State of U.P. & Others, wherein it is held that Public Prosecutor has to apply his mind to the facts of the case independently. 14. The judgment cited by learned counsel for the revisionist are supporting the case of the respondent nos. 2 and 3, because in the present case, the Public Prosecutor has presented the detailed application in pursuance of the Government Order dated 25.08.2014 and the court has observed that in the interest of justice, children should be set free so that they may serve the society and their career may not be hampered. There is nothing on record which indicates that Public Prosecutor did not apply his mind while presenting the application, rather he acted in good faith and opposite party nos. 2 and 3, being children, have been rendered liberal approach by the State Government as well as Public Prosecutor so that they may become good citizen of the country. 15. The aim and object of the Act of 2015 is also very important in the present withdrawal of criminal case because the Act has been promulgated not to treat the children as criminal. 16. In view of above, the order passed by the Court of Juvenile Justice Board dated 26.03.2019 and 24.08.2021 passed by Session Judge are perfectly alright and needs no interference. The revision is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ---------- (2022)04ILR A610 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 30.03.2022 BEFORE THE HON'BLE ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA, J. THE HON'BLE RAJNISH KUMAR, J. Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No. 3192 of 2022 Vikash Yadav ...Petitioner Versus State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Shivam Shukla, Rahul Srivastava Counsel for the Respondents: G.A.