- (1.) This Cr. Revision has been preferred under Section 53 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 against the order impugned by which the Cr. Appeal No. 24 of 2009 preferred by the petitioner for his release on bail for the alleged offence under Sections 302/201/34 of the Indian Penal Code was dismissed by the Sessions Judge, Chatra and the order of the Juvenile Justice Board was affirmed in connection with Simaria P.S. Case No. 7 of 2009, corresponding to G.R. No. 47 of 2009.
(2.) The prosecution story in short was that the informant Sumitra Devi delivered her statement that the hens of her neighbour Md. irfan @ Karu @ Md. Karu had entered into her courtyard to which her son Ranjan Kumar Das chased the hens by pelting stones as a result of which one of their hens died sustaining stone injury. Pursuant to that event the petitioner Md. Irfan @ Karu alongwith the co-accused Md. Imran came to her house, caught hold her son Ranjan Kumar Das, aged about 14 years in her absence and throttled him and also compressed his mouth and nose as a result of which her minor son died. It was further alleged that they hanged the dead- body of her son with the ceiling of the house. At that time her grandson Sunny Raj, aged about 11 years was present, who claimed having seen the occurrence and the complicity of both the culprits. The boy came out form the cot when the culprits returned after giving effect to the occurrence and he raised alarm whereupon the witnesses arrived and brought the body of the deceased on earth by removing the rope.
(3.) Learned counsel Mr. Pandey sub- mitted that the petitioner was declared juvenile aged about 17 years in a preliminary enquiry conducted by the J.J. Board, Chatra. The informant was admittedly not the eye-witness of the occurrence and she derived information from Sunnyraj, a body aged about 11 years. The other witnesses have also not claimed to be the eye-witnesses. The statement of the boy Sunnyraj was recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which he made substantial development beyond what he had narrated under Section 161, Cr PC in course of investigation. The petitioner was remanded in judicial custody and he is in remand home since 7.2.2009. As a matter of fact, the villagers wanted to chase the family of the petitioner and another from the village because the villagers wanted passage through Karbala to which the parents of the petitioner and another had protested. The deceased was habitual thief and his hand was broken a few days prior to the alleged occurrence when he was indulged in committing theft.;