SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1992 Supreme(SC) 163

R.M.SAHAI, R.C.PATNAIK, KULDIP SINGH
Pradeep Kumar: Krishan Kant: Jagdish – Appellant
Versus
State Of U. P. – Respondent


Judgment

JUDGMENT :- The only question for consideration in these appeals by Special Leave is whether each of the appellants in these appeals was a child within the meaning of Section 2(4) of the U.P. Children Act, 1951 and as such on conviction under Section 302/ 34, I.P.C. should have been sent to an approved school for detention till the age of 18 years. Under the provisions of the said Act, persons who come within the definition of child could not be sentenced to undergo imprisonment in jail. The High Court in its judgment under appeal has stated regarding the age of the appellant as under :

"At the time of the occurrence Pradeep Kumar appellant, aged about 15 years, was resident of Railway Colony, Naini, Krishan Kant and Jagdish appellants, aged about 15 years and 14 years respectively, were residents of Village Chaka P.S. Naini."

2. At the time of granting Special Leave, Jagdish appellant produced High School Certificate, according to which he was about 15 years of age at the time of occurrence. Appellant Krishan Kant produced horoscope which showed that he was 13 years of age at the time of occurrence. So far as appellant Pradeep is concerned a medical report was called for by




Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top