IMPORTANT POINT
If a person between 16 and 18 years of age committed a crime before coming into force of Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, he would still be entitled to benefits of Section 20 thereof.

JUDGMENT

Prafulla C. Pant, J.

1. These appeals are directed against judgment and order dated March 08, 2007 passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench, in D.B. Criminal Appeal NOs. 98 of 1999, and 958 of 2004 (arisen out of Session Case No. 4 of 1998 and 95 of 2002 respectively), whereby said Court has dismissed the appeals of Mahendra Singh and Ram Singh, but allowed the appeals of accused Shyobai and Shakuntala Devi. Appeals of accused Dalip Singh and Maduram stood abated as they died in jail during pendency of the appeal.

2. Prosecution story, in brief, is that PW-2 Amar Singh gave a First Information Report (Ex. P-1) at Police Station Bahrod informing that on 06.10.1997 at about 7.00 p.m. accused Maduram, his three sons Roshan, Dalip and Ram Singh, wives of Dalip, Ram Singh and Maduram, Jagat Singh and Krishna Kumar (all from the same family) have committed murder of his cousin Rudmal @ Devendra in the field of Banhadwala. On the basis of said report crime/FIR No. 453 of 1997 was registered and the matter was investigated. After investigation, first charge sheet was filed against accused Maduram, Dalip, Mahendra Singh, Shakuntala Devi and Shyobai for their trial in respect of offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 302 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code (IPC). The investigation against accused Ram Singh, Gyarasi Devi, Roshan, Jagat Singh and Krishna Kumar continued under Section 173(8) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, as they could not be arrested. It appears, on completion of investigation another charge-sheet was filed against them. From the first charge sheet, i.e. one filed against accused Dalip and others, after committal, Sessions Case No. 4 of 1998 was registered, and from the another charge sheet i.e., one against Maduram and others Sessions Case No. 95 of 2002 was registered. It appears that since the accused were in jail, Sessions Case No. 4 of 1998 got concluded before subsequent charge was filed, and was decided vide judgment and order dated 02.02.1999 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bahrod. And another Session Case No. 95 of 2002 (old No. 38 of 1999) subsequently committed and registered, proceeded after the decision in the matter of first set of accused. Evidence of witnesses in the two cases was recorded separately and both were decided independently.

3. Present appellants before us are -Mahendra Singh, one of the convicts in Sessions Case No. 4 of 1998, and Ram Singh, one of the convicts in Sessions Case No. 95 of 2002. They stood convicted under Sections 148 and 302 read with Section 149 IPC. These two convicts filed separate appeals (along with other co-convicts) before the High Court. Mahendra Singh was appellant No. 3 in D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 98 of 1999 (arisen out of Sessions Case No. 4 of 1998), and Ram Singh was appellant in D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 958 of 2004 (arisen out of Sessions Case No. 95 of 2002). Both the appeals were heard together and dismissed by the High Court qua present appellants. However, appeals of Shyobai and Shakuntala Devi were allowed and they were acquitted of the charge. Appeals of Dalip and Maduram stood abated as they died in jail.

4. On behalf of appellant Mahendra Singh, only point argued before us is that, it is apparent from the lower court record that he (Mahendra Singh) was aged 17 years on the date of the incident. It is further stated that he has already underwent imprisonment of more than ten years. Our attention is drawn to the case of Hari Ram v. State of Rajasthan and another, (2009) 13 SCC 211 and it is contended that the benefit of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (for short ‘Juvenile Justice Act, 2000’) should be extended to the convict Mahendra Singh, though he was aged above sixteen years but less than eighteen years on the date of incident and not a juvenile under the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986.

5. In para 39 in Hari Ram’s case (supra), interpreting special provision contained in Sectio