- (1.) Heard Dr. S.B.Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri R.S.Pandey, learned counsel for respondent no. 2 and learned AGA for the State.
(2.) This criminal revision is directed against the appellate judgment dated 13.8.2013 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Kannauj passed in Criminal Appeal No. 30 of 2012 (Raju Gupta versus State of U.P. and another) setting aside the judgment and order dated 16.6.2012 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Kannauj in Case crime no. 542 of 2011 under sections 363, 366, 376 IPC, Police Station Kotwali, District Kannauj whereby revisionist was declared juvenile under Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (in short, Juvenile Justice Act) and Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 (in short, Rules 2007).
(3.) Brief facts are that a First Information Report (in short, FIR) was lodged alleging that revisionist Gaurav Katiyar enticed away the minor daughter of complainant. Victim's statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded subsequent to her recovery wherein she reportedly denied allegations against the revisionist. However, Police continued investigation and thereafter filed charge-sheet against revisionist Gaurav Katiyar. During pendency of this criminal trial, an application was moved on behalf of Gaurav Katiyar before Juvenile Justice Board claiming juvenility. The Juvenile Justice Board conducted enquiry and during the course of enquiry, the statement of Daroga Singh, Assistant teacher, Ganga Ram Balak Ram Inter College, Umran, Kannauj, Smt. Soni Katiyar, Clerk, Shiv Saraswati Gyan Mandir, Saraimeer, Kannauj and Smt. Reeta Katiyar, mother of the revisionist were recorded. After considering all the materials available on record, especially considering the date of birth enshired in High School certificate, revisionist Gaurav Katiyar was declared juvenile by Juvenile Justice Board, Kannauj vide order dated 16.6.2012. Feeling aggreived, informant filed a Criminal Appeal No. 30 of 2012 (Raju Gupta versus State of U.P. And another) claiming that Juvenile Justice Board had wrongly ascertained the age of the revisionist. Informant relied upon the Votor I.D.Card /voter register and discrepancies enshired in oral testimonies of Smt. Reeta Katiyar. The appellate court relying upon the judgment in Sushil Kumar versus Rakesh Kumar, 2003 8 SCC 673 agreed with the contention of the appellant and set aside the order dated 16.6.2012 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Kannauj vide order dated 13.8.2013. This order is under challenge before this Court in the revisional jurisdiction.;