- (1.) SINCE both the revision application has been filed by the same petitioner namely Sonu Kunjra @ Sonu Ansari @ Soni Ansari, hence, both the revision application has been taken together.
(2.) BOTH the revision application is directed against the common judgment dated 6th June 2008 in Criminal Appeal no. 52/2008 and 55/2008 passed by Sri G.K.Verma, Sessions Judge, Palamau whereby the court has affirmed the order dated 13.3.2008 of the J.J.Board, Dumerdaga, Ranchi in G.R. no. 1054/2004 (Chainpur P.S.case no. 78/2004) and G.R. no.1101/2004(Chainpur P.S. case no. 82/2004) respectively. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in both the cases the petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. nor anything has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner. During the course of the trial the petitioner was declared a Juvenile, but his prayer for bail was rejected. He went in appeal, but both the appeal as aforesaid were also rejected stating therein that the petitioner has already fallen in the hands of the hardened criminals and named as a member of the docoity team which committed road robbery. In fact, it will appear that in Chainpur P.S case no. 78/2004 the police reached the place of occurrence at the time of commission of docoity and during firing two dacoits were killed and two injured were arrested and it is stated that the petitioner was named by the co -accused in their confessional statement. But as a matter of fact, he has got no connection with them nor any incriminating article was recovered. Learned counsel has further submitted that the injured accused persons namely Md. Mobarak Kuraishi, Makbool Ahmad and Santu Kuraishi were tried by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.1, Palamau and by his judgment dated 16.5.2008 in S.T. no. 60/2006, all the three accused persons were acquitted from the charges since, the prosecution failed to prove the charges against them. Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed the said judgment through his supplementary affidavit. He has submitted that there is no chance of the petitioner / juvenile getting in contact of any hardened criminal, since the petitioners father Barfati Mian is ready to keep him under his strict supervision and the petitioner who is a juvenile has now remained in jail for about 4 1/2 years since 4.9.2004, when he was arrested and in fact without trial he has remained in jail for the aforesaid period. 3. Learned counsel for the state has also admitted that the petitioner has remained in jail for more than 4 years and the other accused who were arrested on the spot have been acquitted.
(3.) AFTER going through both the appeals and after hearing the parties, I find that the petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. and he was named by the co - accused in their confessional statement and the co -accused on whose confession the petitioner was arrested have also been acquitted as it appears from the judgment in S.T. case no. 60/2006 dated 16.5.2008 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, FTC -1, Palamau. Moreover, it appears that the father of the petitioner is ready to keep the petitioner in strict supervision and see to it that the juvenile does not come in contact with criminal element and does not become friend of criminal type of people.;