# Priyanka Mall @ Mahima Revisionist v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 2 ILRA 1479
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-01-09
- **Case number:** Crl. Revision No. 2098 of 2021
- **Bench:** Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/priyanka-mall-mahima-revisionist-v-state-of-u-p-ors-51281
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Section 364 - Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 - Section 319 - Against summoning
order - Motive has been attributed to
respondent no. 4 that he got sale deed
executed in favour of his wife through
father of victim, of his property, which
was fraudulent transaction and victim and
many
co-villagers
alongwith
Gram
Pradhan visited office of SDM to lay their
protest
-
Victim
allured
by
accused
persons for being ride on their motorcycle
to travel for journey to her village - She
was taken to other route and perpetrators
said that they were bribed by her uncle to
kill her, she got herself rescued anyhow
and one of kidnappers chased and caught
by villagers - She St.d in FIR regarding
presence of PW-2 and PW-3 at time of her
kidnapping - Only evidence laid against
respondent no. 4 is that perpetrators of
offence told victim in course of her
kidnapping that they were bribed by her
uncle to kill her - Allegation of conspiracy
against respondent no.4 rests on alleged
extra-judicial confession of co-accused to
victim during her kidnapping - P.W.2 and
P.W.3 did not depose to any extra-judicial
confession
by
accused
implicating
respondent no.4, they only St.d having
heard that co-accused claimed to be
bribed by him to kill victim - Trial court
rightly
rejected
application
u/s
319
Cr.P.C., as parameters given in Hardeep
Singh (infra) not fulfilled, no cogent
evidence exists against respondent no.4 -
Thus, revision lacks merit, dismissed.
(Para 14, 15, 20)

Revision dismissed. (E-13)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

2 All. Priyanka Mall @ Mahima Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1479
that when there is a long gap probably the
juvenile may have attained sufficient
maturity. It may be noted that in Barun
Chandra Thakur vs Master Bholu and
Another in Criminal Appeal No. 950 of
2022 decided on 13.07.2022 , the Apex
Court has directed that when a preliminary
assessment under Section 15 of the J.J. Act,
2015 is undertaken, assistance of expert
psychologist/psychiatrist,
psycho
social
workers or other experts has to be taken
mandatorily. In my view, experts are the
persons, who, while examining the juvenile
for the purpose of preliminary assessment,
can take care of the fact that they have a
juvenile before them, who has added
certain months or years to his mental age
by lapse of time. No doubt the appellate
Court/Juvenile Justice Board has to tread
very carefully where such an eventuality
has arisen but it may never be taken to
mean that the preliminary assessment is a
step which can be skipped over by the
Juvenile Justice Board.

11. In view of the above, no
interference is required in the order, hence,
it is dismissed.
----------
(2024) 2 ILRA 1479
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 09.01.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAM MANOHAR NARAYAN
MISHRA, J.

Crl. Revision No. 2098 of 2021

Priyanka Mall @ Mahima ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Sri Rahul Singh Dahiya

Counsel for the Respondents:
G.A., Sri Chandra Kumar Singh

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Section 364 - Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 - Section 319 - Against summoning
order - Motive has been attributed to
respondent no. 4 that he got sale deed
executed in favour of his wife through
father of victim, of his property, which
was fraudulent transaction and victim and
many
co-villagers
alongwith
Gram
Pradhan visited office of SDM to lay their
protest
-
Victim
allured
by
accused
persons for being ride on their motorcycle
to travel for journey to her village - She
was taken to other route and perpetrators
said that they were bribed by her uncle to
kill her, she got herself rescued anyhow
and one of kidnappers chased and caught
by villagers - She St.d in FIR regarding
presence of PW-2 and PW-3 at time of her
kidnapping - Only evidence laid against
respondent no. 4 is that perpetrators of
offence told victim in course of her
kidnapping that they were bribed by her
uncle to kill her - Allegation of conspiracy
against respondent no.4 rests on alleged
extra-judicial confession of co-accused to
victim during her kidnapping - P.W.2 and
P.W.3 did not depose to any extra-judicial
confession
by
accused
implicating
respondent no.4, they only St.d having
heard that co-accused claimed to be
bribed by him to kill victim - Trial court
rightly
rejected
application
u/s
319
Cr.P.C., as parameters given in Hardeep
Singh (infra) not fulfilled, no cogent
evidence exists against respondent no.4 -
Thus, revision lacks merit, dismissed.
(Para 14, 15, 20)

Revision dismissed. (E-13)

List of Cases cited:

1. Shiv Prakash Mishra Vs St. of UP, 2019(4)
CCSC 1974(SC), (Paras 9 to 11)

2. Hardeep Singh Vs St. of Punj. (2014) 3 SCC
92, (Relied on)
1480 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
3. Brijendra Singh Vs St. of Raj., (2017) 7 SCC
706, (Relied on)

4. Subramanya Vs St. of Karnataka, 2022 Live
Law (SC) 88

5. Jitendra Mishra Vs St. of U.P., (2023) 7 SCC
344

6. Priyanka Mishra Vs St. of U.P., 2023 (SCC
online) SC 978

7. Moorthy Vs St. of Tamilnadu, Criminal Appeal
No. 975 of 2011, dated 18.8.2023

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ram Manohar
Narayan Mishra, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
revisionist, learned counsel for respondent
no. 2 and learned AGA for the State.

2. By means of instant criminal
revision,
revisionist
has
assailed
the
impugned order dated 10.8.2021 passed by
learned Additional District and Sessions
Judge, Fast Track Court No. 1, Deoria by
which the learned Judge has dismissed the
application 131 Kha under section 319
Cr.P.C. in Session Trial No. 134 of 2018
(State vs. Ramkeshwar and others), under
Section 364 IPC for summoning the
respondent no. 4, Satendra @ Santosh Mall
as conspirator to face trial with the accused,
respondent nos. 2 and 3, who are already
facing trail.

3. Factual matrix of the case in brief
is that the informant/ revisionist lodged
F.I.R. at P.S. Kotwali on 2.10.2012 at 6:25
hours stating therein that she is resident of
village Parwa Tarwa (Parsia Mall), P.S.
Kotwali, Deoria. Her uncle Santosh Mall @
Satendra
Mall
has
got
executed
a
fraudulent sale deed of property of her
father in the name of his wife. She had
gone to the court of SDM, Deoria in
connection with that sale deed and after
getting her statement recorded, she came to
Kotwali. Her father went to Tehsil from
there and she left for her village. When she
reached near overbridge, her co-villagers
Ramkeshwar
Chauhan
and
Sambha
Bhartiya offered her lift on their motorcycle
and assured her that they will leave her at
her village. As they were also going on
same route, she sat at pillion of the
motorcycle on their request. However, she
noticed on the way that instead of taking
her towards village, they were going to
Kasaya road and when she asked as to why
they had changed the route, they stated that
they were taking her away from the village
as her uncle has given money to them for
her murder. They stopped the motorcycle
near Ranchhor Kuti and consumed liquor.
She anyhow get herself rescued from the
clutches and run towards her village by
shouting for help whereupon Gram Pradhan
and other persons assembled there and
caught one accused and other succeeded to
escape from the place. FIR was lodged
against Ramkeshwar and Sambha Bhartiya.

4. The victim, in her statement under
section 161 Cr.P.C., has stated that
Ramkeshwar was caught by the public at
around 7:30 pm on 1.10.2012 but Sambha
Bhartiya escaped from the place. IO also
recorded statement of Durgesh Mall,
constable Omkar Nath Tiwari and other
witnesses during investigation. This fact
surfaced during investigation that Ashok
Mall, father of the victim is two brothers.
The other is Satendra @ Santosh Mall, the
proposed
accused
Santosh
Mall
got
disputed sale deed executed in the name of
his wife Savita which was strongly opposed
by the victim and her family and they had
gone to the court of SDM on the day of
incident to get their statement recorded
alongwith number of co-villagers in protest
2 All. Priyanka Mall @ Mahima Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1481
of this act of respondent no. 4. The victim
was abducted on the way by the co-accused
who
are
already
facing
trial.
The
allegations against the respondent no. 4 are
that he conspired with named co-accused
persons to get the victim abducted who was
to be killed subsequently but she got
narrow escaped from the clutches of
perpetrators of crime.

5. On commencement of trial,
evidence of PW-1 Priyanka Mall, PW-2
Durgesh, PW-3 Tribhuvan was recorded
who supported the FIR version in their
testimony.
The
informant
moved
an
application under section 319 Cr.P.C.
before the trial court to summon Satendra
@ Santosh Mall to face trial together with
accused Ramkeshwar and Sambha who are
already facing trial in the case. He has been
attributed role of chief conspirator in the
offence.

6. Learned court below dismissed the
application under section 319 Cr.P.C. with
observations
that
proposed
accused
Satendra @ Santosh is not named in the
FIR. No particulars are disclosed during
evidence that who has conspired for
kidnapping and murder of the informant
alongwith co-accused persons and as to
how she got rescued herself during course
of evidence. It is also not clear that whether
there is any evidence that any money
(Supari) paid by the proposed accused to
co-accused. The evidence required to
summon the proposed accused in exercise
of power under section 319 Cr.P.C. is not of
such quality that it is of higher degree than
that is required for framing of charge. The
only fact with regard to uncle of the victim
has emerged in the FIR that kidnappers had
told the victim that her uncle has given
money to kill her and same fact has been
narrated by her in her statement as PW-1
during trial. No cogent evidence is found
on record with regard to third person
Satendra @ Santosh which could justify his
summoning to face trial in exercise of
power under section 319 Cr.P.C.

7. Learned trial court has dismissed
the application under section 319 Cr.P.C.
with above observations. Feeling aggrieved
by the impugned order the victim /
informant has filed present revision with
prayer to set aside the impugned order and
pass appropriate order in the case with
regard to summoning of respondent no. 4.

8. Learned counsel for the revisionist
pressing the ground taken in present
revision submitted that uncle of victim has
falsely executed the sale deed in favour of
his wife on behalf of her father and for that
reason she went to get her statement
recorded before the SDM Deoria alongwith
her mother and father and after giving her
statement she left for her home. Two coaccused persons Ramkeshwar and Sambha
met her on the way to her village and
offered ride on their motorcycle and they
also assured her to drop her at the village.
However, they changed the route and when
she asked the reasons for that they told her
that her uncle has given money to kidnap
and kill her. The victim has supported her
FIR version in the statement under section
161 Cr.P.C. and statement recorded during
trial. She has disclosed the name of her
uncle in the statement under section 161
Cr.P.C. and further in statement recorded
during trial as PW-1. The version of PW-1
is corroborated by the statement of PW-2
and PW-3 who has stated in their statement
that they are co-villagers of the victim. PW3 has stated that father of the victim is of
feeble minded person and taking benefit of
that the respondent no. 4 got sale deed
executed in the name of his wife. The
1482 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
victim and co-villagers had appeared before
the SDM Deoria in protest of this act of
respondent no. 4 who got sale deed of the
land of father of victim executed by playing
fraud. PW-2 and PW-3 left for the village
after meeting SDM by riding motorcycle.
They had seen that their co-villagers
Ramkeshwar and Sambha were also riding
motorcycle and going towards the village.
They asked victim to take ride on their bike
and assured her to drop her in the village
but the subsequently she came to know that
instead of taking village, she was taken to
Ranchhor Kuti. The accused intended to
kill her, however, she got herself rescued
and one of them Ramkeshwar was arrested
by the villagers and taken to police station
where victim was also present.

9. Per contra, learned counsel for
respondent no. 2 and learned AGA
submitted that there is no cogent evidence
on record which could form satisfaction of
the court below to exercise of its power
under section 319 Cr.P.C. to summon the
respondent no. 4 as accused to face trial
with respondent no. 2 and 3 who are
already facing trial. The impugned order is
prompted by reasoned and speaking order.
There is no infirmity or illegality in the
impugned order whereby learned trial court
has dismissed the application under section
319 Cr.P.C. moved by the revisionist/
informant.

10. Learned counsel for respondent
no. 2 further submitted that even no time of
occurrence is mentioned in the FIR except
the version of victim that co-accused had
told her during course of kidnapping that
they were bribed by her uncle to kill her.
There is no independent evidence against
the respondent no. 4. The disputed sale
deed executed in favour of wife of
respondent
no.
4
has
already
been
challenged by the parents of the victim
before the civil court by instituting Civil
Suit as OS No. 713 of 2012 (Ashok and
another vs. Savita Devi) which is pending
in the court of Civil Judge (SD) court no.
18, Deoria and competent court has to
decide regarding as to whether the disputed
sale deed is fraudulent. Ashok Kumar,
father of the victim has assailed the sale
deed and sought his cancellation by
claiming him as feeble minded whereas in
said civil suit itself he has filed an affidavit
to the effect that he is healthy and seeks to
prosecute the suit personally. There is no
particulars of offer or payment of any
money by respondent no. 4 to accused
persons who are already facing trial as
contract money to kill or kidnap the victim.
There is enmity of litigation between
respondent no. 4 and PW-3 Tribhuvan and
he is being implicated in the case due to
village party bandi.

11. The stand of the accused persons
who are facing trial, is that they were
implicated in the offence at the behest of
Gram Pradhan Anil Mall who was having
enmity with previous Pradhan Neelamber
who is brother of present accused Sambha
Bhartiya. Neelamber had also visited the
office of SDM on the date of incident.

12. Learned court below while
rejecting the application placed reliance on
the judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court in
Shiv Prakash Mishra vs. State of UP,
2019(4)
CCSC
1974(SC),
wherein,
Hon'ble Supreme Court placed reliance on
its Constitution Bench judgement in
Hardeep Singh vs. State of Punjab (2014)
3 SCC 92 and Brijendra Singh vs. State
of Rajasthan, (2017) 7 SCC 706 wherein
it was held that power under Section 319
Cr.P.C. has to be exercised by the trial court
sparingly, only on the existence of
2 All. Priyanka Mall @ Mahima Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1483
compelling reasons. Provision of Section
319 Cr.P.C. is being reproduced as under:

(1) Where, in the course of any
inquiry into, or trial of, an offence, it
appears from the evidence that any person
not being the accused has committed any
offence for which such person could be
tried together with the accused, the Court
may proceed against such person for the
offence
which
he
appears
to
have
committed.

(2) Where such person is not
attending the Court he may be arrested or
summoned, as the circumstances of the
case may require, for the purpose aforesaid.

(3) Any person attending the
Court although not under arrest or upon a
summons, may be detained by such Court
for the purpose of the inquiry into, or trial
of, the offence which he appears to have
committed.

(4) Where the Court proceeds
against any person under Sub-Section (1)
then-

1. the proceedings in respect of
such person shall be commenced afresh,
and witnesses re-heard;

2. subject to the provisions of
clause (a), the case may proceed as if such
person had been an accused person when
the Court took cognizance of the offence
upon which the inquiry or trial was
commenced.

13. Hon'ble Apex Court in Shiv
Prakash (supra) has held as under:-

"9.
The
standard
of
proof
employed for summoning a person as an
accused person under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is
higher than the standard of proof employed
for framing a charge against the accused
person. The power under Section 319
Cr.P.C. should be exercised sparingly. As
held in Kailash v. State of Rajasthan and
another (2008) 14 SCC 51, "the power of
summoning an additional accused under
Section 319 Cr.P.C. should be exercised
sparingly. The key words in Section are "it
appears
from
the
evidence"...."any
person"...."has committed any offence". It
is not, therefore, that merely because some
witnesses have mentioned the name of such
person or that there is some material
against that person, the discretion under
Section 319 Cr.P.C. would be used by the
court."

10. As held by the Constitution
Bench in Hardeep Singh (supra), the power
under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is discretionary
and is to be exercised sparingly which
reads as under:-

"105. Power under Section 319
CrPC
is
a
discretionary
and
an
extraordinary power. It is to be exercised
sparingly and only in those cases where the
circumstances of the case so warrant. It is
not to be exercised because the Magistrate
or the Sessions Judge is of the opinion that
some other person may also be guilty of
committing that offence. Only where strong
and cogent evidence occurs against a
person from the evidence led before the
court that such power should be exercised
and not in a casual and cavalier manner.

106. Thus, we hold that though only a
prima facie case is to be established from
the evidence led before the court, not
necessarily tested on the anvil of crossexamination, it requires much stronger
evidence than mere probability of his
complicity. The test that has to be applied is
one which is more than prima facie case as
exercised at the time of framing of charge,
but short of satisfaction to an extent that the
evidence, if goes unrebutted, would lead to
conviction. In the absence of such
1484 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
satisfaction, the court should refrain from
exercising power under Section 319 CrPC.
In Section 319 CrPC the purpose of
providing if "it appears from the evidence
that any person not being the accused has
committed any offence" is clear from the
words "for which such person could be
tried together with the accused". The words
used are not "for which such person could
be convicted". There is, therefore, no scope
for the court acting under Section 319
CrPC to form any opinion as to the guilt of
the accused."

11. The above view was followed in
Brijendra Singh as under:-

"13. In order to answer the
question, some of the principles enunciated
in Hardeep Singh case (2014) 3 SCC 92
may be recapitulated: ..... However, since it
is a discretionary power given to the court
under Section 319 CrPC and is also an
extraordinary one, same has to be exercised
sparingly and only in those cases where the
circumstances of the case so warrant. The
degree of satisfaction is more than the
degree which is warranted at the time of
framing of the charges against others in
respect of whom charge-sheet was filed.
Only where strong and cogent evidence
occurs against a person from the evidence
led before the court that such power should
be exercised. It is not to be exercised in a
casual or a cavalier manner. The prima
facie opinion which is to be formed
requires stronger evidence than mere
probability of his complicity."

14. In present case motive has been
attributed to respondent no. 4 that he had got
sale deed executed in favour of his wife
through father of the victim, of his property,
which was a fraudulent transaction and
victim and many co-villagers alongwith
Gram Pradhan Nilamber Singh had visited
the office of SDM to lay their protest. The
victim was allured by present accused
persons for being ride on their motorcycle to
travel for journey to her village. However,
she was taken to other route and alleged
perpetrators said that they were bribed by her
uncle to kill her, however, she got herself
rescued anyhow and one of the kidnappers
was chased and caught by the villagers. She
has nowhere stated in FIR regarding presence
of PW-2 and PW-3 at the time of her
kidnapping. The only evidence laid against
respondent no. 4 is that perpetrators of
offence had told the victim in course of her
kidnapping that they were bribed by her uncle
to kill her.

15. The allegation with regard to
complicity of respondent no. 4 in present case
as conspirator is based on alleged extrajudicial confession of co-accused persons
before the victim during course of her
kidnapping to the effect that they were bribed
by her uncle to kill her. Motive has also been
attributed to respondent no. 4 by the victim
and witnesses as he had got a sale deed
executed through father of the victim
allegedly in a fraudulent manner, which was
objected by the victim and her family
members and a representation was made to
this effect before the SDM. PW-2 and PW-3
have nowhere stated that accused persons had
made any extra-judicial confession regarding
their complicity in the offence or involvement
of respondent no. 4 before them. They have
only deposed before the court that they
came to know that accused Ramkeshwar
and Sambha had stated that they were
bribed by respondent no. 4, Satendra @
Santosh to kill the victim.

16.

Insofar
as
extra-judicial
confession is concerned, it is treated a very
weak piece of evidence and has to be
2 All. Priyanka Mall @ Mahima Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1485
received with care and caution, it can be
relied upon only when it is consistent, clear
and convincing. To use extra- judicial
confession as evidence, the court requires
some materials independent or satisfactory
corroboration. It should not suffer from any
material
discrepancy
and
inherent
improbabilities. There has been consistent
view of various High Courts in this regard
that confession of co-accused could be used
solely in a corroborative capacity and not
itself a basis of conviction. Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Subramanya vs. State
of Karnataka, 2022 Liv-law (SC) 88
recently held that extra-judicial confession
of co-accused should not be reduced as
substantive evidence. Confession of coaccused could be used only in respect of
evidence and could not be made foundation
of conviction.

17. Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Hardeep Singh (supra) settled the legal
position that crucial test, which must be
implied while summoning a person as
additional accused, in exercise of power
under section 319 Cr.P.C., is to find out
more than a prima facie case against the
accused as exercised at the time of framing
of charge but falls short of satisfaction to
the effect that evidence if unrebutted would
lead to conviction.

18. Above view has been reiterated by
the Apex Court in Jitendra Mishra vs.
State of U.P., (2023) 7 SCC 344 as well as
in Priyanka Mishra vs. State of U.P.,
2023 (SCC online) SC 978. Section 30 of
Evidence Act deals with confession of a coaccused, which provides as under:-

"Consideration
of
proved
confession affecting person making it and
others
jointly
under
trial
for
same
offence.-When more persons than one are
being tried jointly for the same offence, and
a confession made by one of such persons
affecting himself and some other of such
persons is proved, the Court may take into
consideration such confession as against
such other person as well as against the
person who makes such confession."

19. On perusal of this provisions it
appears that it is discretionary for the court
to take into consideration the confession of
co-accused while dealing with case of
concerned person as well as against the
person, who is maker of such confession.
Therefore, it is mandatory for the court to
take into consideration the confession of
co-accused in every case. The provision is
enabling in nature. In recent judgement
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Moorthy vs.
State of Tamilnadu in Criminal Appeal
No. 975 of 2011 observed in its judgement
dated 18.8.2023 as below:-

"Generally, it is a weak piece of
evidence. However, a conviction can be
sustained on the basis of extra judicial
confession provided that the confession is
proved to be voluntary and truthful. It
should be free of any inducement. The
evidentiary value of such confession also
depends on the 1 (2011) 11 SCC 111 2
(2013) 12 SCC 383 3 2023 SCC OnLine
SC 259 Crl.A.No.975 of 2011 person to
whom it is made. Going by the natural
course of human conduct, normally, a
person would confide about a crime
committed by him only with such a person
in whom he has implicit faith. Normally, a
person would not make a confession to
someone who is totally a stranger to him.
Moreover, the Court has to be satisfied with
the reliability of the confession keeping in
view the circumstances in which it is made.
As a matter of rule, corroboration is not
required. However, if an extra judicial
1486 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
confession is corroborated by other evidence
on record, it acquires more credibility.".

20. With foregoing discussion and
considering the rival submissions of learned
counsel for the parties as well as material on
record including the impugned order, I find no
infirmity or illegality in the impugned order
passed by the court below while rejecting the
application under section 319 Cr.P.C. moved by
the revisionist to summon the respondent no.4 as
accused to face trial together with accused, who
are already facing trial. The parameters laid down
by Hon'ble Supreme Court for invoking power
under section 319 Cr.P.C. in Hardeep Singh
(supra), is not fulfilled by facts of this case in
respect of respondent no. 4. There is no cogent
and strong evidence against the respondent no. 4
to invoke power under section 319 Cr.P.C.
available to the trial court. There was no prima
facie material and evidence for satisfaction of the
court below that there was more than prima facie
case as exercised at the time of framing of charge
but short of satisfaction to the extent that evidence
if goes unrebutted would lead to conviction.
Revision devoid of merits and deserves to be
dismissed.

21. Accordingly, the instant revision is
dismissed with above observations.
----------
(2024) 2 ILRA 1486
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 13.09.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE JYOTSNA SHARMA, J.

Crl. Revision No. 2126 of 2021

Minor s/o Moolchand ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Sri Adesh Kumar, Priyanka Sharma, Sri Avnish
Kumar Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondent:
G.A., Sri Vivek Kumar Srivastava

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Section 302 - As per FIR, informant's son
shot by revisionist (a minor) with countrymade firearm near his college gate,
leading to his death on the same day - FIR
u/s 302 IPC lodged within five hours -
During investigation, revisionist found to
be about 13 years 6 months old, matter
was placed before J.J.Board where order
for determination of age passed - His bail
application
rejected,
appeal
also
dismissed - Held, it was juvenile who
came prepared and armed with countrymade firearm and though he accompanied
his brother, but it was he, who fired upon
deceased, killing him almost instantaneously -
Before commission of crime, he picked firearm
from his own house indicating that incident
was not committed at spur of moment, rather
it was planned - This can also not be pushed
aside that bail application and revision filed on
behalf of minor through his grandfather and
not by his mother or father - District Probation
Officer reported that juvenile lacked proper
family care and fell into bad company - It is
doubtful that his grandfather alone can
provide adequate care at his age of 13-14
years
-
Juvenile
requires
supervision,
professional
counseling
and
behavioral
therapy - In view of facts and circumstances,
revisionist not entitled to bail. (Para 3, 22,
23, 25)

Revision dismissed. (E-13)

List of Cases cited:

1. Amit Kumar Vs St. of U.P., Criminal Revision
No. 2732 of 2010, decided on 14.09.2010

2. Kanchan Sonkar Vs St. of U.P., Criminal
Revision No. 1266 of 2020, decided on
01.12.2020

3. Amit Vs St. of U.P., Criminal Revision
No.1852 of 2015, decided on 16.03.2016