Point of Law: Criminal Law – Murder – On the basis of the inquiry conducted as per our orders, it is found that appellant was a juvenile as on the date of commission of offence. In such circumstances, as the finding of guilt and consequent conviction of appellant was without any jurisdiction, the only order that can be passed by this Court is to set aside the conviction and consequent sentence.

JUDGMENT :

Ziyad Rahman A.A., J.

The appellant is the accused in S.C.No.259/2017 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court-IV, Kottayam. As per the judgment impugned in this case he stands convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.50,000/- with a default sentence of simple imprisonment for six months. The appellant is in judicial custody since 15.08.2016.

2. The prosecution case is as follows: On 14.08.2016 at 8.15 a.m., the appellant, due to enmity stabbed the deceased to death; both natives of Odisha. Both were employees of PW1/CW1 and were residing together in a rented room. Based on the information submitted by PW1, Crime No 1230/2016 was registered by Ettumanoor Police, and the Circle Inspector of Police, Ettumanoor conducted the investigation and filed charge sheet. In the trial, the prosecution examined 23 witnesses, marked 33 exhibits and 23 MOs were identified. Based on the materials revealed in the trial, the Sessions Court found the appellant guilty and imposed a sentence as mentioned above. This appeal is submitted by the appellant challenging the said conviction and sentence.

3. Heard Sri.M.P.Madhavankutty, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri. Sreejith V.S., learned Public Prosecutor for the State.

4. The primary contention put forward by the learned counsel for the appellant in this appeal, which is not ripe for hearing, is that the appellant was a juvenile on the date of the incident as his date of birth is 04.12.1998. In support of the said contention he produced Annexure-I School Leaving Certificate issued by the Head Master, Government U.P.School, Gopinathpur, Odisha. Based on the said document he contended that the appellant was a juvenile as on the date of commission of the offence, which was on 14.08.2016 and hence the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Child) Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred as JJ Act, 2015), particularly Section 9 thereof will be applicable.

5. In the light of the contention of juvenility, we directed the appellant to furnish the personal address of his native place and other details, such as, place of birth, jurisdictional police station, District, the school first attended etc, for enabling an inquiry in this regard, as mandated under section 9(2) of the JJ Act, 2015. The said details were furnished by the appellant as per Crl.M.A 3/2021. Accordingly we passed an order on 14.7.2021 directing the Member Secretary, Kerala Legal Services Authority to contact the Member Secretary, Odisha Legal Services Authority and furnish them with the personal details of the appellant. The Secretary, Odisha Legal Services Authority was directed to issue a communication to the Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, Bhawani Patana, Kalahandi District and Sessions Division, who was to contact the District Police Chief, Bhawani Patana and instruct him to conduct an inquiry with respect to the date of birth of the appellant herein, through Station House Officer, Rampur Police Station or any other authorized officer. A report of enquiry was directed to be submitted before this Court, through the Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, Bhawani Patana, Kalahandi District and Sessions Division, along with the authenticated certificates of date of birth.

6. In compliance of the aforesaid direction, the respective authorities conducted an inquiry and a report was placed on record before this Court through the Kerala State Legal Services Authority. The report and the documents which accompany the same clearly indicate that the date of birth of the appellant is 4.12.1998. As the date of commission of the offence in this case was on 14.8.2016, he was aged 17 years, 7 months and 10 days as on the date of the incident. As the documents indicating the age of the deceased were produced before this Court as part of an inquiry directed to be conducted by this Court as contemplated under section 9(2) of