- (1.) This criminal revision has been directed against the judgment and order dated 22.12.2008 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Basti in Criminal Appeal No. 148 of 2008.
(2.) An F.I.R. was lodged by one Ram Bahadur with the police of Police Station Nawabganj, Gonda on 6.5.2008 under Section 376 I.P.C. against the revisionist. It has been alleged in the F.I.R. that on 5.5.2008 in between 10.00 P.M. to 11.00 P.M., the revisionist entered the residential house of the complainant and committed rape upon the 7 years old grand daughter of the complainant. The revisionist was arrested and produced before the court. He took a plea before the court that he was a juvenile on the date of the alleged offence and, therefore, he should be declared as such and his matter be referred to the Juvenile Justice Board, Basti (for the sake of convenience hereinafter referred to as 'Board'). Thereafter the matter was referred to the Board. After hearing both the parties, the Board vide its order dated 18.9.2008 held that the revisionist was a juvenile on the relevant date. Thereafter an application for bail under Section 12 of The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (for the sake of convenience hereinafter referred to as 'Act') was moved before the Board. After hearing both the parties, the bail application was rejected. Feeling aggrieved by the said order passed by the Board, the revisionist filed Criminal Appeal No. 148 of 2008 before the learned Sessions Judge, Basti under the provisions of Section 52 of the Act. After hearing, the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment, the present revision has been filed. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
(3.) It has been submitted from the side of the revisionist that the judgment and order impugned herein is bad in the eyes of the law and the learned Sessions Judge has failed to apply his mind in the matter in a proper manner. It has been further submitted that the learned Sessions Judge as well as learned Board had overlooked the mandatory provisions of the Act and the law laid down by this court and also of the Apex Court. It has also been submitted that the learned Board while passing the bail rejecting order dated 10.11.2008, relied upon certain facts which actually did not exist. It has further been submitted that the report submitted by the District Probation Officer before the learned Board is completely in favour of the revisionist despite no importance was given to it and this perverse finding of the Board was confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge in appeal without proper appreciation of the facts. The revisionist has cited a judgment, Shailendra Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P.,2006 10 ADJ 543, Learned A.G.A. has opposed this revision. He has submitted that the revisionist has committed rape upon an infant girl of 7 years and it is a crime against the society. He has further submitted that in rest of her life the victim will suffer with this trauma and always have a feeling of humiliation while moving in the society.;