# Valajindra Kumar Revisionist v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2019) 3 ILRA 395
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2019-09-12
- **Case number:** Criminal Revision No. 1472 of 2014
- **Bench:** Pradeep Kumar Srivastava
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/valajindra-kumar-revisionist-v-state-of-u-p-anr-44761
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

A. Civil Law- Juvenile Justice (Care and
Protection of Children) Act, 2015 -
Section 94 - Determination of age of
juvenile - Age of juvenile can be
determined on the basis of high school
certificate/marks-sheet or school record
if there is no doubt with regards to
genuineness and authenticity thereof -
Court
has
to
be
sure
about
the
genuineness and authenticity of such
certificate/marks-sheet,
particularly
when there is sufficient material on
record
to
create
doubt
on
such
certificate/marks-sheet :- When there
arises
reasonable
doubt
in
respect
thereof, the same cannot be relied blindly
and the court is empowered under law to
ignore the same - Accused cannot be
allowed to abuse the statutory protection
by attempting to prove himself as a minor
when the documentary evidence to prove
his minority gives rise to a reasonable
doubt about his assertion of minority.
(Para 13, 14)

Held:- Whatever information was provided
with regards to the education of Mandeep
Singh was highly suspicious and contradictory.
In view of contradictions in school record of
Mandeep, the JJ Board, finding no other
option determined the age on the basis of the
medical evidence - Juvenile Justice Board,
declared the age of Mandeep Singh to be 20
years and 4 months on the basis of medical
report after deducting one year from the age
determined in medical report. (Para 19)

Criminal revision dismissed (E-5)
List of Cases Cited: -
396 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
1.Shah Nawaz Vs St. of U.P.(SC) 2011(5) ALJ 580.
2.Raju & anr. Vs St. of Haryana (2010) 3 SCC 235.
3.Hari Ram Vs St. of Raj. & anr (2009) 13 SCC

## Text

3 All. Valajindra Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
395
the right of the accused, adversely affecting
his defence. In deciding whether an order
challenged is interlocutory or not so far as
Section 397(2) Cr.P.C. is concerned, the sole
test is not whether such order was passed
during the interim stage, if the order, under
challenge,
culminates
the
criminal
proceeding as a whole or finally decided the
right and liability of the parties then the order
passed is not interlocutory. This is laid down
by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M/s
Bhaskar Industries Limited Vs. Bhiwani
Denim and Apparels Ltd. and Others
reported in [AIR 2001 SC 3625] and in the
case of K.K. Patel and others Vs. State of
Gujrat [AIR 2000 SC 3346].

23. The impugned order is purely
interlocutory which cannot be amenable
in revision under Section 397 Cr.P.C. and
suffers from the bar under Sub-Section
(2) of Section 397 Cr.P.C.

24. On the above two scores, I
find that the revision is not admissible
and, therefore, the same is dismissed at
the very threshold.
----------

(2019)11ILR A395

REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATEDALLAHABAD 12.09.2019

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE PRADEEP KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA, J.

Criminal Revision No. 1472 of 2014

Valajindra Kumar ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Sri Devraj Rajvedi, Sri Amit Kumar
Srivastava, Sri Krishna Datta Tiwari, Sri
B.K. Srivastava, Ms. Pooja Srivastava, Sri
Rahul Chaturvedi

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
A.G.A, Sri Satyendra Narayan Singh, Sri
Subhash Chandra Pandey, Sri Varinder
Singh

A. Civil Law- Juvenile Justice (Care and
Protection of Children) Act, 2015 -
Section 94 - Determination of age of
juvenile - Age of juvenile can be
determined on the basis of high school
certificate/marks-sheet or school record
if there is no doubt with regards to
genuineness and authenticity thereof -
Court
has
to
be
sure
about
the
genuineness and authenticity of such
certificate/marks-sheet,
particularly
when there is sufficient material on
record
to
create
doubt
on
such
certificate/marks-sheet :- When there
arises
reasonable
doubt
in
respect
thereof, the same cannot be relied blindly
and the court is empowered under law to
ignore the same - Accused cannot be
allowed to abuse the statutory protection
by attempting to prove himself as a minor
when the documentary evidence to prove
his minority gives rise to a reasonable
doubt about his assertion of minority.
(Para 13, 14)

Held:- Whatever information was provided
with regards to the education of Mandeep
Singh was highly suspicious and contradictory.
In view of contradictions in school record of
Mandeep, the JJ Board, finding no other
option determined the age on the basis of the
medical evidence - Juvenile Justice Board,
declared the age of Mandeep Singh to be 20
years and 4 months on the basis of medical
report after deducting one year from the age
determined in medical report. (Para 19)

Criminal revision dismissed (E-5)
List of Cases Cited: -
396 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
1.Shah Nawaz Vs St. of U.P.(SC) 2011(5) ALJ 580.
2.Raju & anr. Vs St. of Haryana (2010) 3 SCC 235.
3.Hari Ram Vs St. of Raj. & anr (2009) 13 SCC
211.
4.Ravinder Singh Gorkhi Vs St. of U.P. (2006)
5 SCC 584.
5. Ashwani Kumar Saxena Vs St. of M.P.
(2012) 9 SCC 750.
6. Jodhbir Singh Vs St. of U.P. 2013(1) SC Cri.
R36.
7. Smt. Neha Bee & ors. Vs St. of U.P. 2011
(74) ACC 139.
8. Parashu Ram Singh Vs St. of U.P. 2013 (83)
ACC 392.
9. Farzana Vs St. of U.P. Criminal Revision no.
3919 of 2015 decided on 06.05.2016
10. Ashwani Kumar Saxena Vs St. of M.P.
2012 (79) ACC 748.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar
Srivastava, J.)

1. Heard Shri B.K. Srivastava,
Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Poooja
Srivastava, learned counsel for
the
revisionist,
Shri
Subhash
Chandra
Pandey, learned counsel for the opposite
party no. 2, Sri M.P. Singh, learned AGA
for the State and perused the record.

2. This revision has been filed
against the judgement and order dated
01.04.2014 passed by Additional Sessions
Judge, Court No. 2, Rampur in Criminal
Appeal No. 66 of 2013 (Smt. Valajindra
Kaur Vs. State of U.P and another)
dismissing the appeal and affirming the
order of Juvenile Justice Board dated
09.10.2013.

3. Aggrieved by the impugned
judgement, this revision has been filed
challenging the impugned judgement on
the ground that the impugned judgement
is against the material evidence on record,
arbitrary,
illegal
and
suffers
from
manifest error of law and is based on
conjectures and surmises. The court
below has not applied its judicial mind. In
absence of the matriculation certificate
the date of birth recorded in the school
first attended has to be taken into
consideration, in which the date of birth
was recorded to be 01.02.1995 and the
same was proved by principal of
concerned school. In the family register
also the same date of birth was mentioned
and the extract of the family register was
proved by the Secretary, Gram Panchayat.
Instead of relying on these evidence,
Juvenile Justice Board relied on medical
report with regards to the age of Mandeep
Singh which is contrary to law as medical
evidence is not binding and the school
admission register, transfer certificate and
extract of family register was on record
and were proved by the witnesses.
Therefore, the revisionist has prayed to
set aside the impugned judgement as well
as the judgement of Principal Judge,
Juvenile Justice Board dated 09.10.2013
in Case Crime No. 1563 of 2011 by
which prayer to declare Mandeep Singh
juvenile has been turned down.

4. The revisionist is the mother of
Mandeep Singh who gave an application
before the Juvenile Justice Board that the
date of birth of Mandeep Singh is
01.02.1995, and at the time of incident he
was aged about 16 years 10 months. The
learned counsel for the revisionist has
submitted that earlier the Juvenile Justice
Board
by
order
dated
20.02.2013,
declared Mandeep Singh to be juvenile
3 All. Valajindra Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
397
within the meaning of Juvenile Justice
Act on the basis of school record. Against
the judgement of the Juvenile Justice Board
an appeal was preferred by the complainant
side and the same was dismissed on
26.04.2013. Against that order, revision was
filed before the High Court and by the order
dated 04.07.2013 passed
in Criminal
Revision No. 1546 of 2013 (Darshan Singh
Vs. State of U.P), the High Court set aside
the impugned order dated 26.04.2013 and
the order dated 20.02.2013 passed by
Juvenile Justice Board for taking afresh
decision on the juvenility after taking
evidence regarding education of Mandeep
Singh from class-I to class-V. Opposite party
no. 2 was directed to assist the Board in
providing information regarding his school
first attended. It was further directed that if
such information is not provided and
information is withheld from the Board, the
Board shall be at liberty to take decision on
the basis of opinion of Medical Board in
accordance with Rule 12(3) of Rules 2007.
The present revision pertains to second stage
of litigation on that point as after the case
was remanded by this court by order dated
04.7.2013, the Juvenile Justice Board, after
taking evidence and hearing both the sides,
rejected the application of the revisionist
declaring the age of Mandeep Singh to be 20
years and 4 months on the basis of medical
report after deducting one year from the age
determined in medical report. Against this
order of the Juvenile Justice Board, an
appeal was preferred by the revisionist and
the same was dismissed by the impugned
judgement dated 01.04.2014.

5. Section 7A of the Juvenile Justice
(Care and Protection of Children Act,
2007) provides as follows:-

"7A. Procedure to be followed
when claim of juvenility is raised before
any court. (1) Whenever a claim of
juvenility is raised before any court or a
Act and the rules made thereunder, even
if the juvenile has ceased to be so on or
before the date of commencement of this
Act.

(2) If the court finds a person to
be a juvenile on the date of commission of
the offence under sub-section (1), it shall
forward the juvenile to the Board for
passing appropriate order, and the
sentence if any, passed by a court shall be
deemed to have no effect."

Determination of the question of
Juvenility

6. Section 2(l3) of the Juvenile
Justice (Care and Protection of Children)
Act, 2015 which contains almost similar
provision to that of the Juvenile Justice
(Care and Protection of Children Act,
2007), defines a child in conflict with law
"as a child who is alleged or found to
have committed an offence and who has
not completed eighteen years of age on
the date of commission of such offence".
Section 2(35) defines juvenile as "a child
below the age of eighteen years."

7. Section 9(2) makes provision for
a claim of juvenility to be raised before
any court at any stage, even after final
disposal of a case and sets out the
procedure which the court is required to
adopt, when such claim of juvenility is
raised. It provides for an inquiry, taking
of evidence as may be necessary (but not
affidavit) so as to determine the age of a
person and to record a finding whether
the person in question is a juvenile or not.

8. The proviso adds that a claim of
juvenility may be raised before any court
at any stage, even after final disposal of
398 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the case. The claim of such a juvenile
shall be considered, even if the juvenile
has ceased to be so on or before the date
of commencement of this Act.

9. Section 94 of the Act provides the
procedure to be followed by the courts or
the
Boards
for
the
purpose
of
determination of age in every case
concerning a child in conflict with law. It
provides that the Court or Board shall
determine the age by undertaking the
process of age determination by seeking
evidence by obtaining as follows:-

(i) the date of birth certificate
from
the
school,
matriculation
or
equivalent certificate from the concerned
examination Board if available; and in
the absence thereof;

(ii) the birth certificate given by
a corporation or a municipal authority or
a panchayat;

(iii) and only in the absence of (i)
and(ii) above, age shall be determined by an
ossification test or any other latest medical
age determination test conducted on the
orders of the committee or the Board;

10. It has been further provided that
such
age
determination
shall
be
completed within 15 days from the date
of order of the Board and the age so
determined shall be deemed to be true age
of the person for the purpose of this Act.

11. Earlier Rule 12 (3) of Rules,
2007
provided
similar
but
slightly
different provision from section 94 of the
new Act of 2015 so for as it has brought
all school certificate under one umbrella
under sub-section (1) which provides 'the
date of birth certificate from the school,
matriculation or equivalent certificate
from the concerned examination Board if
available;' as the first requirement. Rule
12 (3) reads as follows:

"In every case concerning a
child or juvenile in conflict with law, the
age determination inquiry shall be
conducted by the court or the Board or,
as the case may be, the Committee by
seeking evidence by obtaining--

(a) (i) the matriculation or
equivalent certificates, if available; and
in the absence whereof;

(ii) the date of birth certificate
from the school (other than a play school)
first attended; and in the absence
whereof;

(iii) the birth certificate given
by a corporation or a municipal authority
or panchayat;

(b) and only in the absence of
either (i), (ii) or (iii) of clause (a) above,
the medical opinion will be sought from a
duly constituted Medical Board, which
will declare the age of the juvenile or
child. In case exact assessment of the age
cannot be done, the Court or the Board,
as the case may be, the Committee, for the
reasons to be recorded by them, may, if
considered necessary, give benefit to the
child or juvenile by considering his/her
age on lower side within the margin of
one year; and, while passing orders in
such
case
shall,
after
taking
into
consideration such evidence as may be
available, or the medical opinion, as the
case may be, record a finding in respect
of his age and either of the evidence
specified in any of the clauses (a)(i), (ii),
(iii) or in the absence whereof, clause (b)
shall be the conclusive proof of the age as
regards such child or the juvenile in
conflict with law."

12. In Shah Nawaz vs. State of
U.P. (SC), 2011(5) ALJ 580, referring to
Raju and Anr. vs. State of Haryana
3 All. Valajindra Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
399
(2010) 3 SCC 235 where the Court had
admitted "mark sheet" as one of the proof
in determining the age of the accused
person,
Hari
Ram
vs.
State
of
Rajasthan & Anr., (2009) 13 SCC 211,
Ravinder Singh Gorkhi vs. State of
U.P. (2006) 5 SCC 584 where the issue
of
School
Leaving
Certificate
was
involved and the Court took the view that
such certificate in order to become
evidence of age, it should be shown that it
was issued in the ordinary course of
business of the school and the said date of
birth
was
recorded
in
a
register
maintained by the school in terms of the
requirements of law as contained in
Section 35 of the Evidence Act. It was
held that the entry relating to date of birth
entered in the mark sheet is one of the
valid
proof
and
evidence
for
determination of age of an accused
person.
Therefore,
the
matriculation
marks-sheet and certificate is a conclusive
evidence of age and there remains no
further need to seek any other proof of
age. Again, in Ashwani Kumar Saxena
vs State of MP (2012) 9 SCC 750 and
Jodhbir Singh vs State of UP2013(1)
SC Cri. R36, it has been held that if
matriculation certificate/marks-sheet is
available, there is no opportunity for the
Board to go for other evidence for the
determination of the age of juvenile. Even
though, new Act has been enforced, the
above view still holds the field as there is
hardly any difference in respect of
determination of age of juvenile.

13. But having said so, the court has
to be sure about the genuineness and
authenticity of such certificate/markssheet, particularly when there is sufficient
material on record to create doubt on such
certificate/marks-sheet. In Om Prakesh
vs. State of Rajasthan, 2012(77) ACC
654 (SC), the trial court itself could not
arrive at a conclusive finding regarding
the age of the accused on the basis of
school record and therefore, it was held
that the opinion of the medical experts
based on X-ray and ossification test will
have to be given precedence over the
shaky evidence based on school records.
The Supreme Court remarked that if there
is a clear and unambiguous case in favour
of the juvenile accused that he was a
minor below the age of 18 years on the
date of the incident and the documentary
evidence at least prima facie proves the
same, he would be entitled for this special
protection under the Juvenile Justice Act.
But when an accused commits a grave
and heinous offence and thereafter
attempts to take statutory shelter under
the guise of being a minor, a casual or
cavalier approach while recording as to
whether an accused is a juvenile or not
cannot be permitted as the courts are
enjoined upon to perform their duties with
the object of protecting the confidence of
common man in the institution entrusted
with the administration of justice. Hence,
while the courts must be sensitive in
dealing with the juvenile who is involved
in cases of serious nature like sexual
molestation, rape, gang rape, murder and
like offences, the accused cannot be
allowed to abuse the statutory protection
by attempting to prove himself as a minor
when the documentary evidence to prove
his minority gives rise to a reasonable
doubt about his assertion of minority. The
benefit of the principle of benevolent
legislation attached to Juvenile Justice
Act would thus apply to only such cases
wherein the accused is held to be a
juvenile on the basis of at least prima
facie evidence regarding his minority as
the benefit of the possibilities of two
views in regard to the age of the alleged
400 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
accused who is involved in grave and
serious offence which he committed and
gave effect to it in a well planned manner
reflecting his maturity of mind rather than
innocence indicating that his plea of
juvenility is more in the nature of a shield
to dodge or dupe the arms of law, cannot
be allowed to come to his rescue.

14. The purpose of the above
discussion is that the age of juveni1ity
can be determined on the basis of high
school certificate/marks-sheet or school
record if there is no doubt with regards to
genuineness and authenticity thereof.
When there arises reasonable doubt in
respect thereof, the same cannot be relied
blindly and the court is empowered under
law to ignore the same.

15. The learned counsel for the
revisionist has argued that when the
school record first attended by Mandeep
Singh was on record there was no
occasion for the courts below to go for
medical report in order to determine the
age of Mandeep Singh. In support of this
contention the judgement of this Court in
Smt. Neha Bee and others Vs. State of
U.P, 2011 (74) ACC 139, Parashu Ram
Singh Vs. State of U.P, 2013 (83) ACC
392 and judgement in Criminal Revision
no. 3919 of 2015 (Farzana Vs. State of
U.P) decided on 06.05.2016 and the
judgement of the Supreme Court in
Ashwani Kumar Saxena Vs. State of
M.P, 2012 (79) ACC 748 have been
referred. The last case being decided by
the
Supreme
Court,
the
following
observations appears to be material for
the purpose of this case:-

"Age determination inquiry",
contemplated under Section 7-A of the Act
read with Rule 12 of the 2007 Rules
enables the Court to seek evidence and in
that process, the Court can obtain the
matriculation or equivalent certificates, if
available. Only in the absence of any
matriculation or equivalent certificates,
the Court need obtain the date of birth
certificate from the school first attended
other than a play school. Only in the
absence of matriculation or equivalent
certificate or the date of birth certificate
from the school first attended, the Court
need obtain the birth certificate given by
a corporation or a municipal authority or
a panchayat (not an affidavit but
certificates or documents). The question
of obtaining medical opinion form a duly
constituted Medical Board arises only if
the above mentioned documents are
unavailable. In case exact assessment of
the age cannot be done, then the Court,
for reasons to be recorded, may, if
considered necessary, give the benefit to
the child or juvenile by considering his or
her age on lower side within the margin
of one year.

Once the Court, following the
above mentioned procedures, passes an
order; that order shall be the conclusive
proof of the age as regards such child or
juvenile in conflict with law. It has been
made clear in subsection (5) of Rule 12
that no further inquiry shall be conducted
by the Court or the Board after examining
and obtaining the certificate or any other
documentary proof after referring to the
sub-rule(3) of the Rule 12. Further,
Section 49 of the Juvenile Justice Act also
draws a presumption of the age of the
juvenility on its determination."

16. As mentioned above, that
aforesaid order dated 04.07.2013 passed
in Criminal Revision No. 1546 of 2013,
this Court clearly laid down that the
Juvenile Justice Board shall determine the
3 All. Valajindra Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
401
age of Mandeep Singh after taking
evidence
from
his
side
about
his
education from class-I to class-V and it
was also expected that from the side of
Mandeep Singh necessary information
shall be provided regarding the school he
has attained such education. Failing to
provide the above two informations the
Juvenile Justice Board was given liberty
to take decision on the basis of report of
Medical Board. From the side of
revisionist the said information were not
provided and whatever information was
provided with regards to the education of
Mandeep Singh was highly suspicious
and contradictory. Moreover, information
of voting and extract of voting list also
shows that the school record of Mandeep
was highly suspicious. Therefore, the
Juvenile Justice Board proceeded to
determine the age on the basis of medical
report.

17. This Court in aforesaid revision
made following observations:-

"Admittedly, opposite party no.2
has not passed matriculation examination
and, therefore, there is no matriculation
or equivalent certificate to show his date
of birth. In the absence of matriculation
certificate, the date of birth recorded in
the school first attended has to be taken
into consideration. No documentary or
oral evidence was led to show the date of
birth recorded in the school first
attended. It was the case of the
complainant that opposite party no. 2
studied in village school. Even from the
affidavit, it is apparent that opposite
party no. 2 passed class V examination in
the year 2003-04. There was no difficulty
in filing the documentary evidence
regarding date of birth recorded in the
school first attended but the same evidence
appears to be deliberately withheld by opposite
party no. 2. Even if no evidence was led on
behalf of opposite party no. 2 to show his date
of birth recorded in the school first attended, it
was the duty of the Board to summon the
relevant documents from the village school or
the school where opposite party no. 2 studied
from class I to class V and a decision
regarding age of opposite party no. 2 could
have been taken on that basis but the Board did
not consider it proper to summon any such
records or witnesses.

A person cannot be permitted to
play hide and seek with the court. He
cannot be permitted to claim juvenility on
the basis of entries of class VI and
withholding the records of class I to class
V. According to Rule 12 (3), the entry in
the school first attended is relevant and
the entries in the has not properly
conducted enquiry as envisaged under the
provisions of Juvenile Justice Act and
matter has to be remanded for a fresh
decision. The Sessions Court has also not
considered this aspect of the matter."

18. From the perusal of both the
judgements, it appears that as directed by
this Court vide aforesaid judgement dated
04.07.2013
no
evidence
regarding
education of Mandeep Singh from class-I
to class-V was filed before the Juvenile
Justice Board. Therefore, both the courts
below took a view that the revisionist
failed to comply with the order of the
High Court. Both the courts have also
noted that Allahabad High Court has
noted in the aforesaid judgement that
Mandeep Singh got admission in class-VI
on 05.07.2004 in Guru Nanak Inter
College, Bilaspur on the basis of the
affidavit of his father but there was no
evidence given that he passed the
examination of class-V in the year 200304, which was necessary to show that said
402 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Mandeep Singh got education from classI to class-V in some school. On the
contrary, it was found that leaving
certificate which was produced before the
Juvenile Justice Board shows that he got
admission in U.K.G on 04.07.2001 and he
passed class-II on 31.03.2003. Therefore,
it was necessary to give educational
record of Mandeep Singh showing that he
passed the examination of class III, IV, V
from some institution, but no such school
record was given. The lower courts below
found it highly suspicious that when
Mandeep Singh passed class-II in year
2003 how he could get admission in
class-VI on 05.07.2004 as there is
difference of at least three years for
getting admission in class-VI. In a natural
way, if a person has passed class-II on
31.03.2003 he can get admission in classVI only after 31.03.2006. On this basis
the learned courts below found the date of
birth (01.07.1995) shown in the leaving
certificate of National Public School,
Bilaspur
to
be
highly
suspicious
particularly when all these points have
been
elaborately
discussed
in
the
aforesaid judgement of the High Court. In
the aforesaid order of the High Court, this
fact also finds mention that in respect of
admission in Guru Nanak Inter College,
the affidavit was filed narrating that
Mandeep Singh has passed class-V in the
year 2003-04 but despite the order of this
Court no evidence was led to show in
which school Mandeep Singh studied
from class-I to class-V nor any such
certificate to that effect was filed.

19. In view of the above anomaly
and contradictions in school record of
Mandeep, the JJ Board, finding no other
option and in view of the aforementioned
direction of this court, determined the age
on the basis of the medical evidence and the
order so passed was further affirmed by
impugned judgement in appeal. It is
pertinent to make a mention that the courts
do not reject the claim of juvenility in a
routine way unless there exists good cause. I
do not find any material irregularity or
illegality or jurisdictional error in the
impugned order and judgement of the courts
below. The revision has got no force and is
liable to be dismissed.

20. The revision is therefore dismissed.
Stay order if any shall stand vacated.
----------

(2019)11ILR A402

REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 21.10.2019

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DINESH KUMAR SINGH-I, J.

Criminal Revision No. 1896 OF 2019

Lokesh & Ors. ...Revisionists
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Revisionists:
Sri Vinay Kumar Pandey

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

A.
Criminal
Law
-Code
of
Criminal
Procedure,1973 - Section 319 - Powers
under Section 319 Cr.P.C. can be exercised
only where strong and cogent evidence are
found - much stronger evidence - of such
level that if the same was left unrebutted, it
would result in conviction of the said person
as an accused.

For summoning a person as accused under
section 319 Cr.P.C. if the court feels satisfied
from the evidence which has come on record
that there was much stronger evidence which