J.J. Munir, J. - (1.) The revisionist, Sangam Sagar @ Roshan, a child in conflict with law is detained in connection with Case Crime no.149 of 2017, under Sections 376(2)(i) & 376D IPC and Section 5/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act), Police Station Kopaganj, District Mau. The revisionist, who is in incarceration since 29.05.2017, has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (hereafter referred to as the 'Act') assailing a judgment and order dated 08.12.2017 passed by Dr. Ajay Kumar, the then Additional Sessions Judge, Court no.1, Mau in Criminal Appeal no.57 of 2017, dismissing the said appeal preferred by the revisionist from an order dated 25.08.2017 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Mau in Application no.65 of 2017, rejecting the bail plea of the revisionist in the crime under reference.
(2.) The facts giving rise to the revision are that a First Information Report was lodged by opposite party no.2, an aunt (Maasi) of the prosecutrix on 23.05.2017 at 2.30 in the afternoon hours alleging that earlier in the day at 8.30 a.m., her niece, the prosecutrix aged about 13 years had gone a small distance away from home to cut grass, where a native of the village, Roshan son of Lakshman Prasad and another boy who was with him at the time dragged the prosecutrix into a sugarcane field and were attempting to molest her when the prosecutrix came over home crying, and, narrated all that had befallen her. The second opposite party closed the written information with a request that she had come to give information of the offence which may be registered as a First Information Report.
(3.) The revisionist who is in incarceration since 29.05.2017 applied to the Juvenile Justice Board seeking to be declared a juvenile. The Board after considering the application, hearing evidence in support of the plea, and, in particular, taking into account the date of birth of the revisionist recorded in his High School certificate which is 25.05.2000, proceeded to hold that the revisionist was a juvenile/ a child in conflict with law aged 16 years 11 months and 28 days on the date of occurrence, and, proceeded to declare him a juvenile vide order dated 05.07.2017.;