Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 2991 (RAJ)

X v. State of Rajasthan Through PP

2022-12-16

FARJAND ALI

body2022
ORDER 1. The matter comes up on an application for correction/recalling the order dated 12.12.2022 passed by this Court in S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1350/2022. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in SB Criminal Misc. Petition No. 1350/2022, after considering the arguments of counsel for the parties and perusing the material available in the file, this Court had deemed fit to allow the application for suspension of sentence of the juvenile and passed an order suspending the sentence of the juvenile-applicant but when the order was uploaded on the Court’s website, it came to light that an erroneous order was uploaded due to some clerical error which did not reflect the appropriate relief so granted in favour of the juvenile-petitioner in SB Criminal Misc. Petition No. 1350/2022 on 12.12.2022. Heard. 3. After considering the arguments of learned counsel for the juvenile-petitioner, the same was verified by this Court by jogging its memory, skimming through the record of the case available on the file as well as tallying the said facts with the steno diary of the particular stenographer who had typed the order dated 12.12.2022. It was revealed after due exercise that an inadvertent error had indeed been made by the steno in transcribing the dictated order from the Pitman shorthand to the order which was uploaded unwittingly and thus, this Court deems it appropriate to rectify the same. 4. Accordingly, the order dated 12.12.2022 is recalled in toto and instead, the following order is passed afresh in lieu of the order dated 12.12.2022: 5. Heard learned counsel for the accused-petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor on the application for suspension of sentence and perused the impugned judgment dated 20.10.2022 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Sirohi in Criminal Appeal No. 36/2021 whereby the appeal of the accused-juvenile filed under Section 101 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 was dismissed and the order passed by the Juvenile Justice Board was upheld as well as the impugned judgment and order dated 17.12.2021 passed by the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Sirohi, by which the juvenile-petitioner had been convicted for commission of offences under Sections 363, 366, 343 and 376 of IPC and was sent to welfare centre. 6. Learned counsel for the juvenile-petitioner submits that the Juvenile Justice Board has grossly erred in convicting and sentencing the juvenile-petitioner. 6. Learned counsel for the juvenile-petitioner submits that the Juvenile Justice Board has grossly erred in convicting and sentencing the juvenile-petitioner. It is submitted that the court below as well as the Board failed to consider the factual and legal aspects of the case accurately as the testimonies of prosecution witnesses do not support the case of the prosecutrix. He drew attention of this Court to the testimony of PW-4 Preeti Lodha, the medical officer that does not corroborate the allegations levelled by the prosecutrix. It is also submitted that PW-3 Moga Ram, who was the father of the prosecutrix, was present with the prosecutrix in the market when the petitioner allegedly took her away. It seems highly improbable that neither the father of the prosecutrix nor any other person in the market raised any alarm when the prosecutrix was allegedly being taken away. It is also submitted that the juvenile-petitioner was on bail during the entire course of the enquiry before the learned Juvenile Justice Board and during the course of trial and he did not misuse the liberty granted in his favour. He has no criminal antecedents and the report of the Probation Officer is not against him. He further submits that there is no possibility of the juvenile-petitioner absconding and he has a strong prima facie case, thus, the revision petition is likely to be accepted; if accepted, hearing of the petition is likely to take a long time to conclude. Therefore, the application for suspension of sentence may be granted. 7. Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposes the prayer made by learned counsel for the juvenile-petitioner and submits that the matter pertains to suspension of a sentence wherein conviction is related to the grave offence of rape. 8. After careful scanning of the record and consideration of the submissions, it is observed that the story of the prosecution is riddled with dents and the testimonies of certain prosecution witnesses do not support the case of the prosecution. Since the doctrine of beyond reasonable doubt is applicable in criminal matters, therefore, even the initial duty lies upon the prosecution to show that the juvenile-petitioner committed the alleged offences. Since the doctrine of beyond reasonable doubt is applicable in criminal matters, therefore, even the initial duty lies upon the prosecution to show that the juvenile-petitioner committed the alleged offences. The submission of the counsel for the juvenile-petitioner that the alleged act was committed when the prosecutrix was present in a market and it seems highly improbable that no one raised any alarm seems to be worth considering in the light of the fact that in the hustle bustle of the market, it is not possible to be ignorant of such an incident, even more so in the present case where the father of the prosecutrix was himself present in the market at the time of the incident. 9. From the perusal of Section 12(1) of the Act of 2015, it is established legal position that a delinquent juvenile ordinarily has to be released on bail irrespective of nature of offence alleged to have been committed by him unless it is shown by evidence that if he is released on bail, there appears reasonable grounds for believing that the release of the delinquent juvenile is likely to bring him into association with any known criminals or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or that his release would defeat the ends of justice. The nature of offence and the merits of the case do not have any relevance. It is for the prosecution to bring on record such material while opposing the bail and make out any of the grounds provided in the section, which may persuade the court not to release the juvenile on bail. But in this case, there is nothing on record to show that the release of the juvenile-petitioner is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal or expose to moral physical or psychological danger or that his release would defeat the ends of justice. The juvenile-petitioner in the present matter has not flouted the liberty granted to him as per the provisions of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act. 10. The juvenile-petitioner in the present matter has not flouted the liberty granted to him as per the provisions of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act. 10. Considering the observations made herein above and the submissions made by the counsel for the parties and while refraining from passing any comments on the niceties of the matter and the defects of the prosecution as the same may put an adverse effect on hearing of the revision petition, this court is of the opinion that it is a fit case for suspending the sentence awarded to the juvenile-petitioner. 11. Accordingly, the application for suspension of sentence filed under Section 389 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the sentence passed by the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Sirohi vide impugned judgment and order dated 17.12.2021 in Main Case No. 04/2021 by which the juvenile-petitioner ’X’ S/o Dhanna Ram had been convicted for commission of offences under Sections 363, 366, 343 and 376 of IPC shall remain suspended till final disposal of the aforesaid revision petition and he shall be released on bail provided his natural guardian, who is his father in the present matter, executes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/-with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned Juvenile Justice Board for his appearance in this court on 17.01.2023 and whenever ordered to do so till the disposal of the revision petition on the conditions indicated below:- 1. That he/she/they will appear before the trial Court in the month of January of every year till the revision is decided. 2. That if the applicant(s) changes the place of residence, he/she/they will give in writing his/her/their changed address to the trial Court as well as to the counsel in the High Court. 3. Similarly, if the sureties change their address(s),they will give in writing their changed address to the trial Court. 12. Accordingly, in view of the observations made herein above, the instant criminal misc. application is disposed off.