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

A.M.AHMADI, S.NATARAJAN
Bhoop Ram – Appellant
Versus
State of Uttar Pradesh – Respondent


JUDGMENT

S. Natarajan, J. - Leave granted.

2. The only question for consideration in this appeal by special leave is whether the appellant who was convicted along with 5 others by the VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bareilly under section 148, I.P.C. and sections 302, 323 and 324 all read with section 149, I.P.C. and sentenced to imprisonment for life besides concurrent sentence for lesser terms of imprisonment should have been treated as a "child" within the meaning of section 2(4) of the U.P. Children Act, 1951 (D.P. Act 1 of 1952) and sent to an approved school for detention therein till he attains the age of 18 years instead of being sentenced to undergo imprisonment in jail.

3. In support of his contention that he was less than 16 years of age on 3.10.1975, that being the date of the commission of the offences for which the appellant has been convicted along with others, the appellant relies upon a school certificate (Annexure B) wherein his date of birth is shown as 24.7.1960. The learned Sessions Judge without going into the question whether the appellant was below 16 years of age on the date of the commission of the offences, adverted only to the fact that the ap

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