VERY IMPORTANT POINT
When a plea is raised on behalf of an accused that he was a 'child' within the meaning of the definition of the expression under the Children Act, it becomes obligatory for the court, in case it entertains any doubt about the age as claimed by the accused, to hold an enquiry itself for determination of the question of age of the accused.

Headnote:(i) JUVENILES -Juvenile Justice Act, 1986-Section 32-Bihar Children Act, 1982-Presumption and determination of age-When a plea raised on behalf of accused that he was a 'child' -If Court entertains any doubt about age as claimed by accused-Obligatory for Court to hold an enquiry for determination of age of accused-Beneficial nature of socially oriented legislation-High Courts directed to issue administrative directions to subordinate Courts.
       Held that when a plea is raised on behalf of an accused that he was a child within the meaning of the definition of the expression under the Act, it becomes obligatory for the court, in case it entertains any doubt about the age as claimed by the accused, to hold an inquiry itself for determination of the question of age of the accused or cause an enquiry to be held and seek a report regarding the same if necessary by asking the parties to lead evidence in that regard. Keeping in view the beneficial nature of the socially oriented legislation, it is an obligation of the court where such a plea is raised to examine that plea with care and it cannot fold its hands and without returning a positive finding regarding that plea, deny the benefit of the provisions to an accused. The court must hold an enquiry and return a finding regarding the age, one way or the other. We except the High Courts and subordinate courts to deal with such cases with more sensitivity as otherwise the object of the Acts would be frustrated and the effort of the Legislature to reform the delinquent child and reclaim him as a useful member of the society would be frustrated The High Courts may issue administrative directions to the subordinate courts that whenever such a plea is raised before them and they entertain any reasonable doubt about the correctness of the plea they must as a rule conduct an inquiry by giving opportunity to the parties to establish their respective claims and return a finding regarding the age of the concerned accused and then deal with the case in the manner provided by law (Para 15)
       (ii) Indian Penal Code, 1860-Section 302-Conviction under Appeal-Concurrent finding regarding involvement of appellants in commission of crime of murder Established enmity between parties Appreciation of evidence by both the courts is proper-Conviction legally sustainable-Plea raised both in Trial Court and also in High Court regarding age of appellants-Trial Court recorded age of appellant 2 as 22 years, appellant 3 as 21 years and appellant 10 as 18 years-Correctness of estimate of age as given by Trial Court neither doubted nor questioned by State-These appellants should not be denied benefit of provisions of Bihar Children Act Their convictions sustained-Sentences awarded to them quashed Conviction and sentence of remaining appellants maintained.
       Held: In our considered opinion, since the plea had been raised in the High Court and because the correctness of the estimate of their age has not been assailed, it would be fair to assume that on the date of the offence each one of the appellants squarely fell within the definition of the expression child We are under these circumstances reluctant to ignore and overlook the beneficial provisions of the Acts on the technical ground that there is no other supporting material to support the estimate of ages of the appellants as given by the trial Court though the correctness of that estimate has not been put in issue before any forum (Para. 12)
       Result: Appeals partly allowed. ~

JUDGMENT

Dr. A.S. Anand J-For an occurrence which took place at about 11.30 AM on 29th September. 1978 in the Bazar in village Barauli, District Gopalganj 11 accused persons were sent up to face their trial for offences under Sections 302/149/148.IPC. The First Information Report in respect of the occurrence was lodged on 29th September 1978 at police station Barauli on the statement of Paras Nath Choubey (PW6) brother of the deceased recorded at the hospital. The learned Additional Sessions Judge vide judgment and order dated 22nd July, 1983 acquitted Mishri Bhaghat but convicted the remaining 10 accused for offences under Sections 302/149/148 IPC. Each of the 10 accused was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for an offence under Sections 302/149. No separate sentence was imposed on anyone of the accused for an offence under Section 148 IPC. Against their conviction and sentence, all the 10 convicts filed three different set of appeals. The Division Bench of the High Court vide judgment and order dated 24th August, 1995 acquitted Sarwa Prasad (appellant No. 5 in the High Court) The conviction and sentence of the remaining 9 convicts was, however, maintained. By Special Leave 6 of the convicts have filed three separate appeals in this Court. Three convicts have not filed any appeal against their conviction and sentence. All the three appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment since they arise out of the common judgment and order of the courts below. Prabhunath Prasad has filed Criminal Appeal No. 1827 of 1996 while Bhola Bhagat is the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 1826 of 1996 the remaining four convicts have filed Criminal Appeal No. 1828 of 1996.

2. According to the prosecution case, on the fateful day Parasnath Chou bey (PW6) along with his brother-Ram Naresh Choubey (deceased) went to the shop of Anish Haider (PW5) for purchasing some cloth. After making the purchase when they reached near the shop of Jagat Prasad, PW6 saw Mishri Bhagat standing in a lane near the medicine shop He directed the remaining accused who were armed with weapons like Dab, Bhala and Farsa to assault the complainant party. While the first informant PW6 managed to escape the accused surrounded his brother and assaulted him, as a result of which Ram Naresh Choubey fell down on the ground. On raising an alarm a number of persons including Jita Manjhi (PW1) Bindeshwari Prasad (PW3) Rajendra Chou bey (PW4) Anish Haider (PW5) Shaukat Ali (PW8) and Damodar Choudhary arrived at the scene of occurrence After the appellants had assaulted the deceased they fled towards the east. PW6 came near his brother but found him unconscious with bleeding injuries on different parts of his body. He removed him to Barauli hospital on a cart. On intimation being sent from the hospital to police station Barauli, Abdul Jalil (PW9) arrived at the hospital and recorded the statement of PW6 since the injured was in an unconscious state. The injury report of Ram Naresh Choubey was prepared. On the advice of the Doctor the deceased was removed to Gopalganj hospital. PW9 returned to the police station and drew up a formal FIR for offences under Section 307 IPC etc. The investigation was taken in hand and site inspection carried out. Blood stained earth was seized from the place of occurrence and was subsequently sent for chemical examination. At about 10.00 P.M. the investigating officer received information that the injured had succumbed to his injuries in Gopalganj hospital. The case was thereupon converted to one under Section 302 IPC. An inquest was held at Gopalganj hospital the same day Thereafter the post-mortem was conducted by Dr. Lakhi Chand Prasad (PW7) As many as 17 antimortem injuries, all cut wounds. were found on the body of the deceased. After close of the investigation the appellants were chargesheeted tried and convicted as already noticed.

3. At the trial all the witnesses except PW1, PW3, and PW4 turned hostile. The Triai Court did not bel

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Cases Referred (2)