Back
2011(1) Crimes 418 (P&H)
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Satish Kumar Mittal & Mohinder Pal, JJ.
Jai Kishan @ Jaiki —Appellant
versus
State of Haryana —Respondent
Crl. Appeal No. 436-DB of 2010
Decided on 16.8.2010
Held: The present case is squarely covered by the aforesaid decisions. On the date of commission of the offence, admittedly, the appellant was about 17 years of age. When the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000 came into force, his trial was pending, however the trial court did not treat him as a juvenile, perhaps for the reason that on that day, he was more than 18 years of age, but in view of the subsequent amendments and the interpretations given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hari Ram’s case (supra), the appellant has to be treated as a juvenile on the date of commission of offence and he is entitled to the benefit of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, as if the provisions of Section 2 (k) had always been in existence even during the operation of the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986. Thus, we are of the opinion that the sentence awarded by the trial court is not sustainable and the same is hereby quashed. Since in the present case, the appellant, who is on bail, has already undergone more than six years of sentence, therefore, there is no purpose to send him to the Juvenile Justice Home, as he has completed more than the maximum period of sentence as provided under Section 15 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000.
In view of the above, the conviction of the appellant, recorded by the trial court vide judgment dated 16.8.2001, is upheld. However, the order of sentence, passed by the trial court on 18.8.2001, is hereby set aside. Since the appellant is already on bail, therefore, there is no need to issue the release warrant. (Paras 29 & 30)
JUDGMENT
Satish Kumar Mittal, J.—Appellant Jai Kishan alias Jaiki, who was 17 years of age on the day of commission of the alleged offence, i.e. 13.10.1997, was tried by the court of Sessions Judge, Rohtak, for the offence under Section 302 IPC, for committing the murder of Subhash, a co-villager. The court of Additional Sessions Judge, Jhajjar, vide its judgment dated 16.8.2001 convicted the appellant under Section 302 IPC, and vide order dated 18.8.2001, sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of 20,000. It has been further ordered that in case, fine of Rs. 20,000 is paid by the appellant, the same be given to the legal heirs of the deceased, as compensation. By the time, the appellant was convicted and sentenced the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000) had come into force and the earlier Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986) was repealed. Under the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, a new definition of ‘juvenile in conflict with law’ was introduced, which defined a juvenile who is alleged to have committed an offence and has not completed eighteenth year of age as on the date of commission of such offence, whereas under the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, the upper age-limit for male children to be considered as juveniles was 16 years. On 13.2.1998, when the appellant was charge-sheeted, he was 17 years of age, therefore, he was not treated as a ‘juvenile’ under the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, and he was tried by the regular criminal court and not by the Juvenile Justice Board.
2. As per the prosecution version, which is based upon the statement (Ex. P1) of Mann Singh (PW5), father of Subhash (the deceased), his son Subhash and appellant Jai Kishan were working with a contractor at Nazabgarh (Delhi). They used to return to the village in the evening. About one month prior to the occurrence, while digging earth for fixing a poll, a quarrel had taken place between Subhash on one side and the appellant Jai Kishan along with Gulshan, Pallu and Radhey Sham on the other side. At that time, Subhash was given injuries by the appellant with fist blows. The other workers working under the said contractor had intervened. On return to the house, Subhash told about the said occurrence to the complainant and his elder son Maman. They asked Subhash not to remain in the company of such bad persons. It is further alleged that the complainant along with his son Maman went to the house of the appellant in the evening, but the appellant declared that as and when he will get an opportunity, he will kill Subhash, as he has given fist blows to him. It is further the case of the prosecution that on 13.10.1997 at about 12 noon, when the complainant along with his nephew Jagdish (PW6) and son Subhash was going to the pond to bring water for doing plaster work at his house, the appellant suddenly arrived from the street having a knife in his hand, near the Chaupal of Khumahar, and raised lalkara to teach lesson to Subhash, who was going ahead of the complainant. Within the sight of the complainant, the appellant gave one knife blow to Subhash on his abdomen. He gave two more knife blows, one on the armpit and the other on the chest of Subhash. When the complainant and Jagdish rushed towards Subhash to save him, the appellant threatened them by showing the knife and thereafter, he ran away from the spot. Thereafter, the complainant and Jagdish took Subhash to Civil Hospital, Bahadurgarh, but he died on the way and was declared dead by the Doctor. On the, same day at 1.45 p.m., Dr. Inderjit Singh Dhankar (PW10) sent ruqa (Ex. PK) to Police station Sadar Bahadurgarh and on receipt of the same, the police arrived in the Hospital and recorded the statement of the complainant, on the basis of which the formal FIR (Ex. P/1) was recorded.
3. On 14.10.1997, Dr. Murari Lal Sharma (PW3), PGIMS, Rohtak conducted a
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
