Amar Singh Chauhan, J. - (1.) The revisionist Kallu Yadav @ Balram has preferred this criminal revision against the judgement and order dated 19.7.2014, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Hamirpur in Criminal Appeal No. 23 of 2014 (Kallu Yadav @ Balram v. Sukkhu @ Pushpendra Yadav and another) under section 52 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 whereby the appeal of the appellant was dismissed and confirmed the order dated 03.04.2014, passed by Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Hamirpur in Misc. Case No. 07/11/2014, (State v. Sukkhu @ Pushpendra Yadav) , arising out of Case Crime No. 62 of 2014 under section 302, IPC, Police Station Sumerpur, District Hamirpur by which the opposite party No. 2 Sukkhu @ Pushpendra Yadav was declared as juvenile by Juvenile Justice Board.
(2.) Brief facts of the case which give rise to the revision are that on 13.1.2014 at about 10.45 a.m. an FIR was lodged by the informant Kallu bearing Case Crime No. 62 of 2014 under section 302, IPC at Police Station Sumerpur, District Hamirpur to the effect that on 12.1.2014 at about 1.30 (noon) his son Radha Yadav aged about 8 years was going accompanied with his Nana. On the way his cousin brother Deepu met his son Radha Yadav and told him not to go with his Nana but he denied and thereafter Deepu went towards his house. On 13.1.2014 at about 9.00 a.m. the dead body of Radha Yadav was found in the field of Indrajeet Singh Parmar.
(3.) Pursuant to FIR, the Investigation Officer after conducting investigation filed charge-sheet against Sukkhu @ Pushpendra Yadav under section 302, IPC. During trial, the father of the accused made an application on 30.4.2014 in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate for declaring the accused Sukkhu @ Pushpendra Yadav as juvenile. Revisionist filed objection and prayed for rejecting the application.;