J.J. Munir, J. - (1.) Heard Sri Hari Bhawan, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Shyamdhar Yadav, learned AGA along with Sri Vivek Dubey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State.
(2.) This revision is directed against an order of Sri Mohd. Aslam, learned Sessions Judge, Ballia dated 25.10.2017 passed in Criminal Appeal (Juvenile) No. 56 of 2017 whereby the learned Sessions Judge has dismissed the appeal affirming an order dated 06.10.2017 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Ballia refusing bail to the revisionist in Case Crime No. 570 of 2017 under Sections 376, 506, IPC and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, P.S. Ubhaon, District Ballia.
(3.) The facts giving rise to the revision in brief are that a first information report was lodged on 09.05.2017 at about 17:45 hours by the informant Ramraj Rajbhar, a resident of village Sonadih, P.S. Ubhaon, District Ballia being a scribed information to the police carrying allegations that on 08.05.2017 at about 3:00 p.m. while his minor daughter (Muniya Kumari) aged about 10 years had gone to attend the call of nature, the accused Manglesh Rajbhar enticed her away, carried her off into a Gumati and ravished her. He gave her Rs. 5/- as an allurement to keep her mouth shut. On returning home, his daughter informed the parents about the incident. It is also mentioned in the FIR that the prosecutrix is a mentally retarded child. The submission of learned counsel for the revisionist is that the revisionist was declared a juvenile by the Juvenile Justice Board on 15.09.2017, his age being found on the date of occurrence to be 15 years, 10 months and 23 days, a fact that is not in issue. The date of birth of the revisionist is 15.06.2001 as recorded in his school certificate which clearly places him below the age of 16 years. The submission is that the revisionist, looking to his age being below 16 the heinous nature or otherwise of the offence imputed to can not be looked into for the purpose of judging his mental and physical capacity to commit such offences, and, it is not a case where considerations on the lines of those under Section 15 and 18 (3) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 can be invoked to deal with the revisionist as an adult judging the worth of all allegations/charges on merits.;