Rohit Barman vs State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others

Vishnu Pratap Singh Chauhan, J

This criminal revision has been filed under Section 102 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (in short 'J.J. Act, 2015')

being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 24/01/2020 passed in Criminal Appeal No.05/2020 by 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Shahdol whereby

while dismissing the appeal filed by the applicant, affirmed the order dated 17/01/2020 passed by Juvenile Justice Board in Criminal case No.158/2019

by which the application filed under Section 12 of J.J. Act, 2015 had been dismissed.

The facts giving rising to this petition, in short, is that the applicant who was child in conflict with law took a female child aged two years nine

months on his lap and removed her undergarments and tried to insert his penis. Mother of the female child saw this incidence and snatched the child

from the lap of the applicant and found some substance in the internal part of the child. She called neighbours and complained this fact, thereafter

lodged report. When child was brought to hospital, doctor found some redness over the anus of the child. Her smear slide was sent to FLS for DNA

test.

Mother of the applicant had filed application under Section 12 of the J.J. Act. Probationary Officer mentioned the fact in report that the applicant is

9th failed and previously did same act with other female child.

His parents are illiterate and not having any control over the applicant. When Probationary Officer inquired from the neighbours, he received

information that applicant is not having good character. He is used to commit such type of incidence, but parents of the female child did not complain

this fact to the the applicant.

Mother of the applicant, being aggrieved by this order filed an appeal before the appellate Court registered as Criminal Appeal No.05/2020.

Learned appellate Court vide order dated 24/01/2020 (impugned in this revision) after considering the facts at large and finally on the basis of report of

Probationary Officer not inclined to release the applicant and handed over the applicant in the custody of mother of the applicant, hence, dismissed the

appeal.

Mother of the applicant being aggrieved by that appellate order has filed this revision before this Court.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has already spent more than two years. He was juvenile at the time of incidence and is

aged about 17 years.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order.

No doubt, Section 12 of J.J. Act, 2015 provides that child in conflict with law shall be handed over to his parents after considering the report of the

Probationary Officer and also considering the fact that if the applicant is released on bail and handed over to the custody of his parents, there should

not be chances in exposure with hardened criminals. If the applicant is not having a good character, he is habitual in doing the criminal act and there is

chances to come across with the hardened criminal, he should not be released on bail and handed over to the custody of his parents. No doubt, in the

present case, it is reflected from the order that the applicant is a child in conflict with law, was previously involved in the same kind of offence and

forcibly raped the girl child and neighbours of the applicant clearly stated that he is not having a good character and he is not under the control of his

parents. No doubt, looking to the factual scenario, there is chances of the irregularity in the impugned order passed by the appellate Court while

affirming the order of the Juvenile Justice Board passed under Section 12 of the J.J. Act, 2015.

Accordingly, the revision is dismissed.

However, considering the present age of the applicant, he be shifted to the place of safety or some other places according to the provisions prescribed

under the J.J. Act.