- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the revisionist and learned AGA. This revision under Section 53 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, is directed against the order passed by Sri Rajendra Singh, Special Judge (E.C. Act), Lucknow, dismissing the Criminal Appeal No. 97 of 2011 (Rakesh Kumar Vs. State of U.P.) filed against the order dated 04.05.2011, passed by Juvenile Justice Board in Case No. 160 of 2004 convicting revisionist Rakesh under Sections 376/506 IPC, and sending him for three years to Special Home, Etawah.
(2.) BRIEF facts giving rise to the present case are that a report was lodged by prosecutrix on 26.05.2004 under Section 376/506 IPC registered as Crime No. 160 of 2004, alleging therein that Rakesh son of Shyam Lal raped her. Her mother had died and father was serving in P.R.D. She was aged about 13 years and student of class 5. Rakesh who raped her was son of landlord. After investigation charge-sheet was submitted against Rakesh, Shyam Lal, Gautam and Smt. Shanti Devi under Sections 376/506 IPC. The Additional Sessions Judge/FTC-VI found Rakesh to be juvenile and referred the matter before the Juvenile Justice Board for inquiry who declared him juvenile vide order dated 02.12.2008. Rakesh pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Prosecution examined P.W.-1 victim, PW -2 Guru Prasad, PW-3 Dr. Ratna Pandey, PW-4 Dr. Eena Gupta, PW-5 Umshankar Yadav. Statement under Sections 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. After considering the evidence on record, the Board came to the conclusion that prosecution has established the case against Rakesh beyond reasonable shadow of doubt. Consequently, Rakesh was convicted and sentenced as above. Against the order dated 04.05.2011 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, an appeal (Criminal Appeal No. 97 of 2011) was field under Section 52 of the Act before the Sessions Judge which has been dismissed by Additional Sessions Judge vide judgment and order dated 02.11.2011. These very orders have been impugned in the Revision.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the revisionist submits that the victim was daughter of the tenant, as such, in order to avoid the liability of rent revisionist has been implicated. It was also alleged that prosecution has failed to establish date, time and place of occurrence. Orders have been passed without applying mind and without considering the evidence of Dr. Eena Gupta who said that no specific opinion of rape can be given etc. I have perused the statements and the record available before the Court, from which it appears that prosecutix has specifically made allegation against Rakesh. No such case, that he has been falsely implicated to avoid the liability of rent was taken before the appellate court. Ground in the appeal was that Rakesh having refused to marry the prosecutrix, has been falsely roped in. As such, argument of false implication made to avoid the liability of rent, is not borne out from record. Moreover, no such case has been taken before the Juvenile Justice Board as well. Victim has categorically stated that she was repeatedly raped by Rakesh. This statement has been believed by the courts below. There is no reason to disbelieve her, as such, courts below have not committed any error in relying upon the testimony of victim. If medical examination is done after a long period, doctor would obviously report that no definite opinion about rape can be given. Since victim has denied her consent, question of age becomes irrelevant. Other witnesses suport the version of prosecution and have been rightly relied upon.;