ANJANI KUMAR MISHRA, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri A. Kumar Singh learned counsel for the revisionist and learned AGA for the State.
(2.) THIS revision has been filed challenging the order dated 11.03.2015 whereby the application filed by the revisionist on the question of juvenility has been rejected. This order has been passed in S.S.T. No. 57 of 2014 arising out of Case Crime no. 355 of 2014 (State of U.P. Vs Akash Sharma) under Sections 376, 384, 354A, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act 2012 and 66A/66C Information of Technology Act, Police Station Naubasta, District Kanpur Nagar.
(3.) IT has been contended by learned counsel for the revisionist that as per the FIR dated 13.05.2014 as also on the basis of the statement of Saumya Tripathi the occurrence took place in the month of November, 2011. The date of birth of the revisionist as per the All India Secondary Examination Certificate is 27.02.1994. In such view of the matter, the revisionist on the date of incident namely November 2011 was aged only 16 years and 9 months and therefore, a juvenile and was therefore, liable to be declared so, but the court below has refused to do so only on the ground that the charges against the revisionist are very grave. Learned AGA on the other hand had submitted that as per the allegations contained in the FIR it is true, that the first incident is of November 2011. There is also allegation of an incident in July 2013 and an acid attack in Chennai and extortion of money by black mailing her on the basis of certain obscene video clips prepared by the revisionist.;