[ad_1]
Patna High Court – Orders
Gautam Kumar vs The State Of Bihar on 31 July, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL REVISION No.53 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-644 Year-2022 Thana- ARA NAGAR District- Bhojpur
======================================================
Gautam Kumar S/o- Ramadhar singh R/O Village- Raghu tola PS- Ara town
District-Bhojpur
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Munni Devi W/o- Satya Narayan Rai Village- Badka Chanda Ps- Koelwar
Dist- Bhojpur
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Awadhesh Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Anish Chandra, APP
For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Kunal Singh, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIBEK CHAUDHURI
ORAL ORDER
4 31-07-2025
This is a criminal revision under Section 102 of the
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015
challenging legality and propriety of the order dated 01.10.2024
passed by the learned First Additional District & Sessions
Judge-cum-Special Judge, Children’s Court, Bhojpur at Ara in
Criminal Appeal No.31 of 2024, whereby the learned Court of
Appeal set aside the order dated 01.05.2024 passed by the
learned Juvenile Justice Board in J.J.B. Case No.272 of 2023
(arising out of Ara Town P.S. Case No.644 of 2022). This
revision challenges the said order dated 01.10.2024 passed in
Cr. Appeal No.31 of 2024.
2. Ara Town P.S. Case No.644 of 2022 was registered
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.53 of 2025(4) dt.31-07-2025
2/6
on the basis of Fardbeyan of one Ramadhar Rai, which was
recorded by the S.H.O. of Ara Town police station on
17.07.2020 at around 5:00 a.m., the informant went to the house
of his step mother, namely, Sumitra Devi. As soon as he reached
in front of the door of the house of Sumitra Devi, he found
blood sipping out from beneath the door. Immediately he
opened the gate and found dead-body of his step mother having
bleeding injury on her body. He also found the dead-body of
Ram Awadhesh Rai @ Munna lying on the bed having fetal
injury on his abdomen. It appears to the informant that both of
them were shot dead then he rushed to call Premchand Rai,
brother of Sumitra Devi, who used to reside in the neighborhood
some other people also rushed to the place of occurrence and
gathered on the basis of the said statement, police registered Ara
Town P.S. Case No.644 of 2022 dated 17.07.2020 under Section
302 of the I.P.C. and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
3. During investigation, the Investigating Officer
suspected the informant, his son Gautam Kumar, Sonu Kumar,
Bittu @ Arbaaz Khan as the perpetrated of the offence. On
completion of investigation, police submitted charge-sheet
against Gautam Kumar, Sonu Kumar, Bittu @ Arbaaz Khan
while the investigation was kept pending against the informant
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.53 of 2025(4) dt.31-07-2025
3/6
Ramadhar Rai, Nikhil Kumar and Vikas Kumar.
4. The petitioner filed an application before the
learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhojpur at Ara claiming
himself to be a juvenile on the date of commission of offence.
The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate referred the case to the
Juvenile Justice Board for further consideration.
5. Initially the Board by an order dated 14.12.2022
rejected the petition filed by the CICL holding, inter-alia- that
the plea of juvenility by the petitioner was wrong and
concocted.
6. The petitioner did not prefer an appeal against the
said order. The petitioner filed a second petition on 15.07.2023
with similar prayer alongwith Admit Card, Mark-sheet,
Registration Receipt issued by the Bihar School Examination
Board and Transfer Certificate issued by the R.N. High School,
Birampur, Bhojpur and also his Aadhar Card. On the basis of the
said documents, the petitioner claimed that on the date of
occurrence he was aged about 16 years 03 months and 29 days
as his date of birth was 12.03.2006. The Juvenile Justice Board
on verification of those documents under the provision of
Section 94(2) of the said Act held the petitioner as a juvenile on
the date of commission of offence. Against the said order, one
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.53 of 2025(4) dt.31-07-2025
4/6
Munni Devi daughter of deceased Sumitra Devi preferred an
appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, 1st Court-cum-
Children Court at Ara, which was registered as Criminal Appeal
No.31 of 2024. The learned Trial Judge allowed the appeal by
setting aside the order passed by the Juvenile Justice Board
dated 01.05.2024 holding, inter-alia, that Section 104 of the said
Act does not contemplate for a review of the earlier order of the
Board and the Board has no jurisdiction to pass subsequent
order dated 01.05.2024 declaring the CICL as juvenile.
7. The learned Advocate on behalf of the petitioner
submits that the CICL did not seek for review, the subsequent
petition filed on behalf of the CICL was indeed an application
under Section 9(2) of the said Act before the learned Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Bhojpur at Ara and the learned Chief
Judicial Magistrate referred the matter to the Juvenile Justice
Board for disposal.
8. It is also submitted by the learned Advocate on
behalf of the CICL that Section 9(2) of the said Act authorizes a
CICL to raise claim of juvenility at any stage and whenever this
plea is taken, it is the duty of the Court to direct the Board to
conduct a fair and proper inquiry to ascertain the truth by
examining the correctness of the documents or certificates or
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.53 of 2025(4) dt.31-07-2025
5/6
materials produced before the Court.
9. Initially, the CICL could not produce enough
document to prove that he was juvenile on the date of
commission of alleged offence, subsequent application was filed
on the basis of additional documents, viz. Matriculation
certificate, Admit Card issued by the Bihar Secondary Board of
Education, Transfer Certificate, Aadhar Card etc. On the basis of
said document, the Board has power to pass fresh judgment
declaring the CICL as a juvenile on the date of commission of
offence.
10. In support of his contention, the learned Advocate
for the CICL refers to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Pawan Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and others, reported in
(2023) 15 SCC 683 and Rahul Kumar Yadav Vs. State of
Bihar, reported in AIR 2024 SC 2739.
11. The learned Children’s Court mis-appreciated the
provision of Section 104(2) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and
Protection of Children) Act, 2015. The aforementioned
provision provides that without prejudice to the provision for
appeal and revision, under the said Act, the Committee or Board
may on an application received in this behalf amend any orders
passed by itself, as to the institution to which a child is to be
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.53 of 2025(4) dt.31-07-2025
6/6
sent or as to the person under whose care or supervision a child
is to be placed under the Act. Clause-(2) of Section 104 speaks
about amendment of clerical and arithmetical mistake.
12. Second application filed by the petitioner was not
an application for rectification of any clerical mistake. This was
an application for declaring the petitioner as a juvenile. The said
application is maintainable and the order passed by the
Children’s Court in Criminal Appeal No.31 of 2024 is set aside.
The CICL shall be tried in accordance with the provisions
contained in the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of
Children) Act, 2015.
13. The instant revision is accordingly, allowed on
contest. There shall be however, no order as to cost.
(Bibek Chaudhuri, J)
mdrashid/-
U T
[ad_2]
Source link