CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH, RAJIV ROY
Md. Bittu @ Wasim Akram – Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar – Respondent
Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J.—The appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment and order dated 6.7.2015 and 15.7.2015 passed by the learned Trial Court in Sessions Trial No. 429 of 2013, whereby and whereunder the appellant Md. Bittu @ Wasim Akram has been convicted and sentenced as under:
| Convicted under Sections | Imprisonment | Fine (Rs.) | In default of fine |
| 364/149 of the I.P.C. | Imprisonment for life | 5,000/- | S.I. for one year |
| 120-B/149 of the I.P.C. | Imprisonment for life | 5,000/- | S.I. for one year |
| 302/149 of the I.P.C. | Imprisonment for life | 5,000/- | S.I. for one year |
| 201/149 of the I.P.C. | R.I. for seven years | 5,000/- | S.I. for one year |
| Section 27(1) of the Arms Act | R.I for three years | 5,000/- | S.I. for one year |
2. This appellant, during the pendency of this appeal, had claimed his juvenility as on the date of occurrence by making an application vide Interlocutory Application No. 1 of 2022. This appeal was earlier taken up along with batch of other criminal appe
The court affirmed the conviction under Section 302 IPC based on circumstantial evidence, emphasizing the necessity of a complete chain of circumstances to establish guilt, while recognizing the appe....
The court affirmed the conviction but set aside the sentence for a juvenile offender, imposing a fine instead, in accordance with juvenile justice provisions.
Juveniles charged with offences must be treated according to juvenile law; failure to do so results in invalidation of convictions and sentences.
The court upheld the rape conviction but quashed the sentence under juvenile law, stressing rehabilitation over retribution for juvenile offenders.
(1) Juvenile accused – Medical opinion based on Bone Ossification Test, is not entirely accurate – In a case of juvenility where two views are possible, liberal approach should be undertaken.(2) Bene....
An individual assessed to be a juvenile at the time of offence must not be tried as an adult, with their age determination being essential for proper legal proceedings.
The judgment emphasizes the importance of witness testimonies, medical evidence, and the sequence of events in establishing the guilt of the accused in criminal cases.
Juveniles must be tried under juvenile laws, and prison sentences cannot exceed statutory limits for juveniles. The appeal allowed the convict's release.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.