# Ranjeet (Juvenile) Revisionist v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2021) 8 ILRA 576
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-07-19
- **Case number:** Criminal Revision No. 3380 of 2019
- **Bench:** Shamim Ahmed
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ranjeet-juvenile-revisionist-v-state-of-u-p-anr-47276
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

(A) Criminal Law - Constitution of India -
Article 21 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Sections 302, 394 & 411 - Revision - The
Code of criminal procedure, 1973 - The
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of
Children) Act, 2015 - Section12, 18(1)(g),
Section 101 - appeal - ipse dixit - gravity
of
the
offence
is
not
relevant
consideration for refusing grant of bail to
the juvenile - maximum period for which a
juvenile can be incarcerated in whatever
form of detention, is three years, going by
8 All. Ranjeet (Juvenile) Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
577
the provisions of Section 18(1)(g) of the
Act.(Para - 10,17)

Revisionist is a juvenile declared by Juvenile
Justice Board - age below 18 years on the date
of occurrence - in jail since 17.04.2017 in
connection with the present crime - completed
more than four years of the sentence - applied
for bail before the Juvenile Justice Board - bail
application was rejected - revisionist preferred
an appeal - dismissed -Hence the present
criminal revision. (Para - 7,8)

HELD:- The juvenile is clearly below 18 years of
age having no criminal history . The two courts
below have held the juvenile disentitled to bail
on account of his case falling under each of the
three exceptions enumerated in the proviso to
sub section (1) of Section 12, for which no
reason has been indicated. Finding, in both the
orders impugned, is based on an ipse dixit, in
one case of the judge and in the other of the
Board. Both the courts below have passed the
impugned judgment and orders in cursory
manner without placing due reliance on the
report submitted by the District Probation
Officer as well as facts and circumstances of the
case. Impugned judgment and order hereby set
aside and reversed. Bail application of the
revisionist stands allowed.(Para - 14,16,19) .

Criminal Revision allowed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:-

## Text

576 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
connection with the prosecution, would
render
the
Superintendent
of Police,
Chandauli personally answerable to this
Court.

16. In the result, this revision stands
disposed of in terms of the following orders
:

(i)
The
Trial
Judge
shall
proceed to record the testimony of the
prosecutrix, the first informant and her
father, if he is a witness cited by the
prosecution, within one month next, in
Sessions Trial No. 73 of 2020, State v.
Sonu Kumar Gaud, pending before the
Additional Sessions Judge (POCSO Act)
Chandauli, if the evidence of these
witnesses has already not been recorded.

(ii) If the evidence of all these
witnesses has already been recorded or
comes to be recorded and concluded
hereinafter, the learned Trial Judge shall
proceed to consider in the first instance
and before proceeding with the trial
further, whether a case to summon the
third opposite party, Satish Kumar Gaud,
in the exercise of powers under Section
319 of the Code is made out or not.

(iii) If the third opposite party is
summoned to stand his trial along with
co-accused Sonu Kumar Gaud, the Trial
Judge shall proceed to consider framing
of the appropriate charge(s) against the
accused in accordance with law, before
proceeding to trial. After the stage of
reframing/further framing of charges, if
any, is over, the Trial Court shall proceed
with the trial expeditiously, fixing one
date every week and endeavour to
conclude the same within three months of
its commencement.

17. The Superintendent of Police,
Chandauli shall act to ensure the safety of
the prosecutrix, her father and the first
informant
in
the
manner
ordered
hereinabove.

18. Let this order be communicated to
the learned Additional Sessions Judge
(POCSO Act), Chandauli through the
learned Sessions Judge, Chandauli and the
Superintendent of Police, Chandauli by the
Registrar (Compliance)
----------
(2021)08ILR A576
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.07.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHAMIM AHMED, J.

Criminal Revision No. 3380 of 2019

Ranjeet (Juvenile) ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Sri Alak Ranjan Mishra, Sri Amitabh Ranjan
Mishra, Mrs. Amrita Mishra, Sri Surendra
Kumar Tripathi

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
A.G.A.

(A) Criminal Law - Constitution of India -
Article 21 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Sections 302, 394 & 411 - Revision - The
Code of criminal procedure, 1973 - The
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of
Children) Act, 2015 - Section12, 18(1)(g),
Section 101 - appeal - ipse dixit - gravity
of
the
offence
is
not
relevant
consideration for refusing grant of bail to
the juvenile - maximum period for which a
juvenile can be incarcerated in whatever
form of detention, is three years, going by
8 All. Ranjeet (Juvenile) Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
577
the provisions of Section 18(1)(g) of the
Act.(Para - 10,17)

Revisionist is a juvenile declared by Juvenile
Justice Board - age below 18 years on the date
of occurrence - in jail since 17.04.2017 in
connection with the present crime - completed
more than four years of the sentence - applied
for bail before the Juvenile Justice Board - bail
application was rejected - revisionist preferred
an appeal - dismissed -Hence the present
criminal revision. (Para - 7,8)

HELD:- The juvenile is clearly below 18 years of
age having no criminal history . The two courts
below have held the juvenile disentitled to bail
on account of his case falling under each of the
three exceptions enumerated in the proviso to
sub section (1) of Section 12, for which no
reason has been indicated. Finding, in both the
orders impugned, is based on an ipse dixit, in
one case of the judge and in the other of the
Board. Both the courts below have passed the
impugned judgment and orders in cursory
manner without placing due reliance on the
report submitted by the District Probation
Officer as well as facts and circumstances of the
case. Impugned judgment and order hereby set
aside and reversed. Bail application of the
revisionist stands allowed.(Para - 14,16,19) .

Criminal Revision allowed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:-

1. Kamal Vs St. of Har., 2004 (13) SCC 526

2. Takht Singh Vs St. of M.P., 2001 (10) SCC
463

3. Shiv Kumar & Sadhu Vs St. of U.P. 2010 (68)
ACC 616(LB)

4. Dataram Singh Vs St. of U.P. & anr., (2018) 3
SCC 22

(Delivered by Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed, J.)

1. This revision is directed against the
judgment and order dated 17.06.2019
passed by learned Additional Sessions
Judge, Court No. 8, Agra dismissing
Criminal Appeal No. 57 of 2019 (Ranjeet
Vs. State of UP) filed under Section 101 of
the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of
Children) Act, 2015 (for short ''the Act')
and affirming the order dated 21.02.2019
passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Agra
refusing the bail plea to the revisionist in
Case Crime No. 85 of 2017, under Sections
302, 394 & 411 I.P.C., Police StationShamsabad, District Agra.

2. Heard learned counsel for the
revisionist as well as learned A.G.A. for the
State and perused the record.

3. The prosecution case, as per the
version of the FIR, is that on 5.4.2017,
when informant, Seemendra Singh Solanki
who is a Sub-Inspector along with his team
members
namely
Constable
Gurmeet
Singh, Constable Naresh Chand and
Constable Vipin Kumar were patrolling, an
information was received at about 7:25 on
RT Set that firing was being done near Raja
Kheda Road Bypass Tiraha and one person
had got injured. Upon receiving the
aforesaid information, the informant along
with his team members reached the place of
occurrence and found Constable Ajay
Kumar of Police Station Shamsabad in a
grievous injured condition lying aside road.
The informant got knowledge from the
people surrounded there that when the said
Constable Ajay Kumar was trying to stop
the three rogues who were coming from
Rajkheda, they pumped many bullets to
Constable Ajay Kumar by hurling abuses
from their country made pistols. In reply,
Constable Ajay Kumar has also open fired
to them but they snatched his service pistol
and flew away from the place of
occurrence.
Thereafter,
the
informant
informed the higher officers about the said
incident and bring Constable Ajay Kumar
from the official jeep of police station to
578 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the G.G. Nursing Home where the doctors
declared Constable Ajay Kumar as dead.
Thereafter, the dead body of Constable
Ajay Kumar was sent to mortury at S.N.
Medical
College
for
post
mortem
examination.

4. Learned counsel for the revisionist
submits that the revisionist has been falsely
implicated in the present case. It is further
submitted that the revisionist is in jail since
17.4.2017 and has completed more than
four years of his incarceration.

5. Learned counsel for the revisionist
further submits that co-accused Yogesh @
Khanna who is also a juvenile and having
similar role already been granted bail by this
Court vide order dated 30.9.2019 passed in
Criminal Revision No. 3112 of 2019. It is
argued that the revisionist being a minor,
cannot be held in institutional incarceration
any further once co-accused, who is also a
juvenile and similarly circumstanced, has
been admitted to bail. Further submission is
that the case of the revisionist is not on worse
footing than that of the co-accused, therefore
on principles of parity also the revisionist be
released on bail.

6. Learned counsel for the revisionist
further submits that the revisionist is
juvenile and there is no apprehension of
reasoned ground for believing that the
release of the revisionist is likely to bring
him in association with any known
criminals or expose him to mental, physical
or psychological danger or his release
would defeat the ends of justice. He further
submits that except this the revisionist has
no previous criminal history. The mother of
the revisionist is giving her undertaking
that after release of the revisionist on bail,
she will keep him under his custody and
look after him properly. Further, the
revisionist undertakes that he will not
tamper the evidence and he will always
cooperate the trial proceedings. There was
no
report
regarding
any
previous
antecedents of family or background of the
revisionist.
There
is
no
chance
of
revisionist's re-indulgence to bring him into
association with known criminals.

7. Learned counsel for the revisionist
further submits that it is not in dispute that
the revisionist is a juvenile as he already
been declared juvenile by Juvenile Justice
Board vide order dated 24.01.2019. The
revisionist was a juvenile, below the age of
18 years on the date of occurrence. He was,
thus, clearly below 18 years of age. He is in
jail since 17.04.2017 in connection with the
present crime and has completed more
than four years of the sentence out of the
maximum
three
years
institutional
incarceration permissible for a juvenile,
under Section 18(1)(g) of the Act.

8. Learned counsel for the revisionist
further
submits
that
thereafter
the
revisionist applied for bail before the
Juvenile Justice Board, Agra upon which a
report from the District Probation Officer
was called for. The bail application was
rejected vide order dated 21.02.2019, being
aggrieved, the revisionist preferred an
appeal under Section 101 of the Act, which
was also dismissed vide order dated
17.06.2019. Hence the present criminal
revision has been filed before this Hon'ble
Court mainly on the following amongst
other grounds:

(i) That the bail application of the
revisionist was rejected by the court below
in a very cursory and arbitrary manner.

(ii) That the revisionist, who is
juvenile, is wholly innocent and has been
8 All. Ranjeet (Juvenile) Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
579
falsely implicated by the first informant in
the present case.

(iii) That the courts below have not
appreciated the report of the District
Probation Officer in its right perspective.

(iv) That the impugned judgment
and orders passed by the learned courts
below are apparently illegal, contrary to law
and based on erroneous assumption of facts
and law.

(v) That there was absolutely no
material on record to hold that the release of
the Juvenile would likely to bring him into
association with any known criminal or
expose
him
to
moral,
physical
or
psychological danger or his release would
defeat the ends of justice, yet the courts below
have illegally, arbitrary and on surmises
refused the bail of juvenile.

(vi) That the courts have erred in
law in not considering the true import of
Section 12 of the Act, 2015 and thus, the
impugned orders passed by the courts below
suffer from manifest error of law apparent on
the face of record.

(vii) That the courts below have
acted quite illegally and with material
irregularity in not properly considering the
case of juvenile in proper and correct
perspective which makes the impugned
orders passed by the courts below non est
and bad in law.

(viii) That bare perusal of the
impugned orders demonstrate that the same
have been passed on flimsy grounds which
have occasioned gross miscarriage of justice.

9. Several other submissions in order
to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations
made against the revisionist have also been
placed forth before the Court. The
circumstances which, according to the
counsel, led to the false implication of the
accused have also been touched upon at
length. It has been assured on behalf of the
revisionist that he is ready to cooperate
with the process of law and shall faithfully
make himself available before the court
whenever required and is also ready to
accept all the conditions which the Court
may deem fit to impose upon him. It has
also been pointed out that in the wake of
heavy pendency of cases in the Court, there
is no likelihood of any early conclusion of
trial.

10. Learned counsel for the revisionist
has pointed out that the revisionist has by
now done more than four years of
institutional incarceration. The maximum
period for which a juvenile can be
incarcerated in whatever form of detention,
is three years, going by the provisions of
Section 18(1)(g) of the Act. In support of
his contention, learned counsel for the
revisionist has placed reliance of Hon'ble
Apex Court judgment in the case of Kamal
Vs. State of Haryana, 2004 (13) SCC 526
and submitted that the Hon'ble Apex Court
was pleased to observe in paragraph no. 2
of the judgment as under :-

"2. This is a case in which the
appellant has been convicted u/s 304-B of
the India Penal Code and sentenced to
imprisonment for 7 years. It appears that
so far the appellant has undergone
imprisonment for about 2 years and four
months. The High Court declined to grant
bail pending disposal of the appeal before
it. We are of the view that the bail should
have been granted by the High Court,
especially having regard to the fact that the
appellant has already served a substantial
580 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
period
of
the
sentence.
In
the
circumstances, we direct that the bail be
granted to the appellant on conditions as
may be imposed by the District and
Sessions Judge, Faridabad."

11. Learned counsel for the revisionist
has also placed reliance of Hon'ble Apex
Court judgment in the case of Takht Singh
Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2001 (10)
SCC 463, and submitted that the Hon'ble
Apex Court was pleased to observe in
paragraph no. 2 of the judgment as under:-

"2. The appellants have been
convicted under Section 302/149, Indian
Penal Code by the learned Sessions
Judge and have been sentenced to
imprisonment for life. Against the said
conviction and sentence their appeal to
the High Court is pending. Before the
High Court application for suspension of
sentence and bail was filed but the High
Court rejected that prayer indicating
therein that the applicants can renew
their prayer for bail after one year. After
the expiry of one year the second
application was filed but the same has
been rejected by the impugned order. It
is submitted that the appellants are
already in jail for over 3 years and 3
months. There is no possibility of early
hearing of the appeal in the High Court.
In the aforesaid circumstances the
applicants be released on bail to the
satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate,
Sehore.
The
appeal
is
disposed of accordingly."

12. In spite of service of notice upon
opposite party no.2, no one has appeared on
behalf of opposite party no.2 nor any
counter affidavit has been till date. It
appears that opposite party no.2 is not
interested to file counter affidavit.

13. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the
revisionist's case with the submission that
the release of the revisionist on bail would
bring him into association of some known
criminals, besides, exposing him to moral,
physical and psychological danger. It is
submitted that his release would defeat the
ends of justice, considering that he is
involved in a heinous offence.

14.

This
Court
has
carefully
considered the rival submissions of the
parties and perused the impugned orders.
The juvenile is clearly below 18 years of
age and does not fall into that special
category of a juvenile between the age of
16 and 18 years whose case may be viewed
differently, in case, they are found to be of
a
mature
mind
and
persons
well
understanding the consequences of their
actions. The provisions relating to bail for a
juvenile are carried in Section 12 of the
Act, which reads as under:

"(1) When any person, who is
apparently a child and is alleged to have
committed a bailable or non-bailable
offence, is apprehended or detained by the
police or appears or brought before a
Board, such person shall, notwithstanding
anything contained in the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or in any
other law for the time being in force, be
released on bail with or without surety or
placed under the supervision of a probation
officer or under the care of any fit person:

Provided that such person shall
not be so released if there appears
reasonable grounds for believing that the
release is likely to bring that person into
association with any known criminal or
expose the said person to moral, physical
or psychological danger or the person's
release would defeat the ends of justice,
8 All. Ranjeet (Juvenile) Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
581
and the Board shall record the reasons for
denying the bail and circumstances that led
to such a decision.

(2) When such person having
been apprehended is not released on bail
under subsection (1) by the officer-incharge of the police station, such officer
shall cause the person to be kept only in an
observation home in such manner as may
be prescribed until the person can be
brought before a Board.

(3) When such person is not
released on bail under sub-section (1) by
the Board, it shall make an order sending
him to an observation home or a place of
safety, as the case may be, for such period
during the pendency of the inquiry
regarding the person, as may be specified
in the order.

(4) When a child in conflict with
law is unable to fulfil the conditions of bail
order within seven days of the bail order,
such child shall be produced before the
Board for modification of the conditions of
bail."

15. A perusal of the said provision
show that bail for a juvenile, particularly,
one who is under the age of 18 years, is a
matter of course and it is only in the event
that his case falls under one or the other
disentitling categories mentioned in the
proviso to sub-Section (1) of Section 12 of
the Act that bail may be refused. The merits
of the case against a juvenile acquire some
relevance under the last clause of the
proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 12 that
speaks about the ends of justice being
defeated.
The
other
two
disentitling
categories are quite independent and have
to be evaluated with reference to the
circumstances of the juvenile. Those
circumstances are to be gathered from the
Social Investigation Report, the police
report and in whatever other manner
relevant facts enter the record.

16. What is of prime importance in
this case is that the juvenile, who is a
young boy, has no criminal history. There
is nothing said against the juvenile,
appearing from the Social Investigation
Report that may show him to be a
desperado or misfit in the society. The two
courts below have held the juvenile
disentitled to bail on account of his case
falling under each of the three exceptions
enumerated in the proviso to sub section (1)
of Section 12, for which no reason has been
indicated. That finding, in both the orders
impugned, is based on an ipse dixit, in one
case of the judge and in the other of the
Board. Even if it be assumed that the
offence was committed in the manner
alleged, it would be rather strained logic to
hold that release of the juvenile on bail
would lead to the ends of justice being
defeated. Both the courts below have
passed the impugned judgment and orders
in cursory manner without placing due
reliance on the report submitted by the
District Probation Officer as well as facts
and circumstances of the case.

17. This Court in the case of Shiv
Kumar alias Sadhu Vs. State of U.P.
2010 (68) ACC 616(LB) was pleased to
observe that the gravity of the offence is
not relevant consideration for refusing
grant of bail to the juvenile.

18. After perusing the record in the
light of the submissions made at the bar
and after taking an overall view of all the
facts and circumstances of this case, the
nature of evidence, the period of detention
already undergone, the unlikelihood of
582 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
early conclusion of trial and also in the
absence of any convincing material to
indicate the possibility of tampering with
the evidence and in view of the larger
mandate
of
the
Article
21
of
the
Constitution of India and the dictum of
Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh
vs. State of UP and another, (2018) 3
SCC 22 and the view taken by the Apex
Court in the cases of Kamal Vs. State of
Haryana (supra), Takht Singh Vs. State
of Madhya Pradesh (supra) and Shiv
Kumar alias Sadhu Vs. State of U.P.
(supra)., this Court is of the view that the
present criminal revision may be allowed
and the revisionist may be released on bail.

19. In the result, this revision
succeeds and is allowed. The impugned
judgment and order dated 17.06.2019
passed by learned Additional Sessions
Judge, Court No. 8, Agra, are hereby set
aside and reversed. The bail application of
the revisionist stands allowed.

20. Let the revisionist, Ranjeet
(Juvenile) through his natural guardian, his
mother namely Smt. Kanta be released on
bail in Case Crime No. 85 of 2017, under
Sections 302, 394 & 411 I.P.C., Police
Station-Shamsabad, District Agra upon his
natural guardian furnishing a personal bond
with two solvent sureties of his relatives
each in the like amount to the satisfaction
of the Juvenile Justice Board, Agra subject
to the following conditions:

(i) That the natural guardian of
the revisionist will furnish an undertaking
that upon release on bail the juvenile will
not be permitted to come into contact or
association with any known criminal or
allowed to be exposed to any moral,
physical or psychological danger and
further that the natural guardian will
ensure that the juvenile will not repeat the
offence.

(ii) The revisionist and his
natural guardian will report to the District
Probation Officer on the first Wednesday of
every calendar month commencing with the
first Wednesday of January, 2021 and if
during any calendar month the first
Wednesday falls on a holiday, then on the
next following working day.

(iii)
The
District
Probation
Officer will keep strict vigil on the activities
of the revisionist and regularly draw up his
social investigation report that would be
submitted to the Juvenile Justice Board
concerned on such periodical basis as the
Juvenile Justice Board may determine.

(iv) The party shall file computer
generated copy of such order downloaded
from the official website of High Court
Allahabad or the certified copy issued by
the Registry of the High Court, Allahabad.

(v) The computer generated copy
of such order shall be self attested by the
counsel of the party concerned.

(vi)
The
concerned
Court/Authority/Official shall verify the
authenticity of such computerized copy of
the order from the official website of High
Court Allahabad and shall make a
declaration of such verification in writing.

21. However, considering the peculiar
facts and circumstances of the case, the
court below is directed to make every
possible endeavour to conclude the trial of
the aforesaid case within a period of four
months from today without granting
unnecessary adjournments to either of the
parties.
8 All. State of U.P. Vs. Vijay Kumar & Anr.
583
----------
(2021)08ILR A583
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 27.07.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DEVENDRA KUMAR
UPADHYAYA, J.
THE HON'BLE AJAI KUMAR SRIVASTAVA-I, J.

Application U/S 378 Cr.P.C. No. 32 of 2021

State of U.P. ...Applicant
Versus
Vijay Kumar & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
G.A.
Counsel for the Opposite Parties:

Criminal
Law
-
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure, 1973- Section 378(3) - Appeal
against Acquittal- Having considered the
matter in its entirety and in view of the
law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Krishnegowda's case (supra) and
Ramesh's case (supra), we find that the
learned trial court's findings regarding
acquittal
of
accused-Vijay
Kumar,
opposite party No.1 herein is based on
proper
appreciation
and
analysis
of
evidence available on record which does
not
in
any
manner
appear
to
be
improbable or perverse.

It is settled law that an order of acquittal further
reinforces the presumption of innocence in
favour of the accused, therefore the findings of
the trial court can only be interfered by the High
Court where there are strong and compelling
reasons and the judgement of the trial court is
perverse and erroneous. ( Para 22)

Criminal Appeal rejected. (E-2)

Judgements/ Case law relied upon:-

1. Krishnegowda & ors. Vs St. of Kar. by
Arkalgud Police, (2017) 13 SCC 98
2. Ramesh & ors. Vs St. of Har., (2017) 1 SCC
529

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ajai Kumar
Srivastava-I, J.)

1. We have heard learned Additional
Government Advocate for the State and gone
through the record available before us.

2. By means of the present application
under Section 378(3) of the Cr.P.C., the State
has sought leave to appeal to assail the
judgment and order dated 23.12.2020 passed
by the learned Additional District & Sessions
Judge/Special Judge POCSO Act, District
Ambedkarnagar, whereby the learned trial
court has acquitted the accused-Vijay Kumar,
who is opposite party No.1 in the instant case,
for the offence under Sections 363, 366,
376(1), 354 of the I.P.C and Sections 3A/4 of
the Protection of Children from Sexual
Offences Act, 2012.

3. The case of the prosecution as
unfolded during trial is that the first
informant-Vinod Kumar Sharma lodged the
written report, Ex. Ka-1, at Police Station
Ibrahimpur, District Ambedkarnagar on
19.11.2013
stating
therein
that
his
niece/victim is aged about 15 years. She is a
student of class-10th. On 17.11.2013 at about
11.00 AM, she was abducted by Mangal,
Vijay, Ram Sewak, Suraj and Vivek, who are
residents of his colony, while the victim was
going to attend her tuition. Thereafter, she
could not be traced till evening, therefore, by
submitting the written report, Ex. Ka-1, the
first informant-Vinod Kumar Sharma prayed
for taking appropriate action against the
guilty persons.

4. On the basis of written report, Ex.
Ka-1, lodged by the first informant-Vinod
Kumar Sharma an F.I.R., Ex. Ka-11, was