SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Y.V. CHANDRACHUD, CJI., E.S. VENKATARAMIAH, J.
Jayendra and another, Appellants
Versus
State of U.P., Respondents.
Criminal Appeal No. 551 of 1981
Decided on 24-7-1981.
Uttar Pradesh Children Act, 1951 - Section 2 (4) and 27 - Physical examination and radiological findings – Child Definition of - Report of Chief Medical Officer shows that by general appearance, physical examination and radiological findings, appellant was about 23 years of age on date of report - That would mean that on June 17, 1974 which is date of offence, appellant was about 16 years and 4 months old - Estimate given by Chief Medical Officer, Bareilly is a rough estimate by approximation but we have on the record statement of appellant himself which is uncontradicted that he was above 15 years of age on date of offence - Held, Section 2 (4) of Act, 1951 defines a child to mean a person under the age of 16 years – Court opinion that the appellant Jayendra was a child within the meaning of this provision on date of offence. S. 27 of aforesaid Act says that notwithstanding anything to contrary in any law, no court shall sentence a child to imprisonment for life or to any term of imprisonment. S. 2 provides, in so far as it is material, that if a child is found to have committed an offence punishable with imprisonment, the court may order him to be sent to an approved school for such period of stay as will not exceed the attainment by the child of the age of 18 years – Appellant has to be upheld, we quash the sentence imposed upon him and direct that he shall be released - Special leave petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT :— Heard counsel. Special leave to appeal is granted to Appellant 1 Jayendra.
2. We had called for a report from the Doctor in charge of the jail hospital as regards the age of appellant No. 1, Jayendra. The report of the Chief Medical Officer, Bareilly, Dr. P. D. P. Mathur, dated Feb. 17, 1981 shows that by general appearance, physical examination and radiological findings, the appellant Jayendra was about 23 years of age on the date of the report. That would mean that on June 17, 1974 which is the date of the offence, the appellant was about 16 years and 4 months old. The estimate given by the Chief Medical Officer, Bareilly is a rough estimate by approximation but we have on the record the statement of the appellant himself which is uncontradicted that he was above 15 years of age on the date of the offence;
3. Section 2 (4) of the Uttar Pradesh Children Act, 1951 (U. P. Act No. 1 of 1952) defines a child to mean a person under the age of 16 years. Taking into account the various circumstances on the record of the case we are of the opinion that the appellant Jayendra was a child within the meaning of this provision on the date of the offence. S. 27 of the aforesaid Act says that notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any law, no court shall sentence a child to imprisonment for life or to any term of imprisonment. S. 2 provides, in so far as it is material, that if a child is found to have committed an offence punishable with imprisonment, the court may order him to be sent to an approved school for such period of stay as will not exceed the attainment by the child of the age of 18 years. In the normal course, we would have directed that the appellant Jayendra should be sent to an approved school but in view of the fact that he is now nearly 23 years of age, we cannot do so.
4. For these reasons, though the conviction of the appellant Jayendra has to be upheld, we quash the sentence imposed upon him and direct that he shall be released forthwith. In so far as the other appellant is concerned, his special leave petition has already been dismissed.
Order accordingly.
For Citation : AIR 1982 SC 685
Vikas Info Solutions Pvt. Ltd.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.