Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 147 (RAJ)

Deeta Ram @ Deepa Ram v. State of Rajasthan

2016-01-22

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2016
JUDGMENT : Sandeep Mehta, J. In instant Revision has been preferred on behalf of the petitioner juvenile with the prayer for releasing him in the guardianship of his respective natural guardian during the pendency of the inquiry/Criminal Original Case pending in the Court of the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Sirohi. 2. The Juvenile Justice Board, Sirohi rejected the application submitted on behalf of the petitioner under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act by Order dated 5.11.2015 and the Appeal preferred on behalf of the petitioners has also been rejected by the learned Sessions Judge, Sirohi by Order dated 18.11.2015 Hence, this Revision. 3. The petitioner is in confinement in connection with the aforesaid case instituted after investigation of the F.I.R. No. 309/2015 at the Police Station Abdul Road Sadar, District-Sirohi for the offences under Section 376 I.P.C. and Section 3/4, 5(j)(ii)/6 of POCSO Act and Sections 67 and 67-A of I.T. Act. 4. The victim Mst. R. has disclosed her age to be 16 years, whereas the petitioner was about 17 years 5 months of age at the time of the incident. In the statement of the victim recorded during the course of the investigation, she aliened that the accused first committed rape with her and then snapped her indecent picture about 8 months before filing of the F.I.R. She was threatened that if she disclosed of the incident to anybody, then the indecent picture will be made public. The accused repeated the act on three or more occasions. She conceived because of the forcible sexual intercourse and when her pregnancy started showing, she disclosed of the incident to her mother where after, the report came to be filed. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that even though the petitioner is alleged to have committed rape upon the minor girl but he himself is also a minor. The fact remains that the relations, if any between the two, were consensual. The victim and the petitioner were carrying on since long. The victim did not disclose of the incident to anybody for a long period despite available opportunity. The police has not found the offence under Section 67/67-A off the I.T. Act made out against the petitioner after investigation. He further submits that the Probation Officer's report is favourable to the petitioner. The victim did not disclose of the incident to anybody for a long period despite available opportunity. The police has not found the offence under Section 67/67-A off the I.T. Act made out against the petitioner after investigation. He further submits that the Probation Officer's report is favourable to the petitioner. He thus says that the petitioner deserves to be released to the custody of his natural guardian father during the course of the inquiry. 6. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. 7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the fact that the F.I.R. was filed after a significant delay and so also, the fact that the police has not found the offences under the I.T. Act made out against the petitioner after investigation and considering the provisions of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act but without commenting on the merits of the case, this court is of the opinion that the petitioner deserves to be released to the guardianship of his natural guardian being the petitioner's father during the pendency of the case. 8. Accordingly, the revision deserves to be and is hereby allowed. The Orders dated 18.11.2015 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Sirohi in Appeal as well as the Order dated 5.11.2015 passed by the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Sirohi are hereby set aside. The Principal Magistrate, Juvenile justice Board, Sirohi shall release the petitioner into the guardianship of his natural guardian namely Rama Ji @ Ram Lal upon the guardian furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 80,000/- and two sureties in the sum of Rs. 40,000/- such to the satisfaction of the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Sirohi with the undertaking that he shall ensure that the petitioner shall not come in contract with the hardened criminals during the pendency of the inquiry proceedings.