Juveniles charged with offences must be treated according to juvenile law; failure to do so results in invalidation of convictions and sentences.

JUDGMENT :

ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J.

We have heard Mr. Ansul, the learned Advocate for the appellant/Ajit Singh @ Ajit Kumar Singh [Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 620 of 2014] and Mr. Ravindra Kumar, the learned Advocate for the appellants in other two appeals, viz., Cr. Appeal (DB) Nos. 586 and656 of 2014 respectively.

2. The State is represented by Mr. Ajay Mishra and Mr. Dilip Kumar Sinha, the learned APPs., respectively.

3. Mr. Sanoj Kumar, the learned Advocate has appeared for the informant in all the three appeals.

4. One of the appellants in Cr. Appeal (DB)No. 656 of 2014, namely, Maheshwar Singh @ Mahesh Singh, had died during the pendency of the appeal and, therefore, the appeal as against him stood abated by this Court vide order dated 21.09.2023.

5. The appellant/Ajit Singh @ Ajit Kumar Singh (hereinafter called Ajit Singh) has been convicted under Sections 302 and 364/34 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE (in short the I.P.C.), whereas the rest of the appellants in Cr. Appeal (DB) Nos. 586 and 656 of 2014 have been convicted under Sections 302 /34 and 364/34 of the I.P.C. vide judgment dated 04.07.2014 passed by the learned Adhoc Additional District and Sessions Judge-II, Khagaria in Sessions Case No. 322 of 1995, arising out of Khagaria P.S. Case No. 186 of 1991, and by order dated 08.07.2014, all of them have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- each for the offence under Section 302 /34 of the I.P.C. and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- each for the offence under Section 364 /34 of the I.P.C.

6. A default clause has also been provided in the sentence and it has been directed that the sentences shall run concurrently.

7. One Satyanarayan Mahto (informant/P.W.3), who is the father of the deceased/Nand Kishore Mahto, has lodged the F.I.R. alleging that his son (deceased) was shot dead by appellant/Ajit Singh. He has further stated that about fifteen days prior to the occurrence, because of the dispute between Dev Narayan Mahto (the cousin of the informant) and appellant/Jai Kant Mahto, Dev Narayan Mahto along with his family members had left the village after uprooting his hut which was erected on the land which was the bone of contention between Dev Narayan Mahto and Jai Kant Mahto. Dev Narayan Mahto, according to P.W. 3, had learnt that Jai Kant Mahto had called his relatives at his house for taking punitive action against the family members of Dev Narayan Mahto. This was also one of the reasons for Dev Narayan Mahto to have run away from his village home.

8. On 28.05.1991, it has been alleged that when no member of the family of Dev Narayan Mahto could be found by the miscreants/appellants, they came to the house of the informant (P.W. 3) and took away his son/Nand Kishore Mahto (deceased). One of the miscreants, namely, Nageshwar Mahto (since dead) had caught him and had taken him to the house of appellant/Jai Kant Mahto. P.W. 2 (Daresh Devi, the mother of the deceased and the wife of the informant) along with his family members followed the miscreants, but they were threatened of being shot dead in case they pursued them. The deceased was taken inside the house of appellant/Jai Kant Mahto, where on the orders of aforesaid Nageshwar Mahto, appellant/Ajit Singh fired from his weapon, which hit the deceased in his right eye and he died instantaneously. The blood which had s