Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2010 Supreme(P&H) 3385

2011(2) RCR(Cri) 622
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
M. JEYAPAUL, J.
Lakhbir Singh s/o Harbans Singh s/o Gurdev Singh, r/o village Muskabad, Tehsil Samrala, District Ludhiana -Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab -Respondent
Crl. A. No.842-SB of 2000
Decided on: 21.12.2010
Roshan Lal s/o Nath s/o Puran Singh, r/o village Behlolpur, Tehsil and District Ropar -Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab -Respondent
Crl. A. No. 857-SB of 2000
Decided on: 21.12.2010
State of Punjab -Appellant
Versus
1. Roshan Lal s/o Nath s/o Puran Singh, r/o village Behlolpur, Tehsil and District Ropar.
2. Lakhbir Singh s/o Harbans Singh s/o Gurdev Singh, r/o village Muskabad, Tehsil Samrala District Ludhiana -Respondents
Crl. A. No. 929-SB of 2000
Decided on: 21.12.2010

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
Mr. B.S. Thind, Advocate with Mr. K.K. Saini, Advocate for the appellants in Crl. Appeal No. 842-SB of 2000 & Crl. Appeal No. 857-SB of 2000 and for the respondents in Crl. A. No. 929-SB of 2000.
Mr. Arshwinder Singh, DAG, Punjab for the respondent-State and for the appellant in Crl. A. No.929-SB of 2000.

The main legal point established is that the accused, who had not completed 18 years at the time of the offence, are entitled to the benefit of the juvenile offender under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000.

Headnote:
Juvenile Offender - Murder - Indian Penal Code, Section 302; Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, Section 7-A - The court discussed the determination of the accused's age in the spirit of the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 and the retrospective effect under Section 7-A of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. It held that the accused, who had not completed 18 years at the time of the offence, are entitled to the benefit of the juvenile offender under the new Act. The conviction was set aside, and the accused were treated as juveniles, leading to the dismissal of the State's appeal.
Fact of the Case:

The accused were convicted for the murder of the victim by strangulation and theft. The trial court sentenced them to 10 years rigorous imprisonment each. The State appealed against the quantum of sentence, while the accused appealed against their age determination and punishment.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the accused, who had completed 17 years at the time of the offence, were entitled to the benefit of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. As a result, their conviction was set aside, and the appeals were disposed of accordingly.
Issues: The issues involved the determination of the accused's age in relation to the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 and the retrospective effect under Section 7-A of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, as well as the quantum of sentence imposed on the accused.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the accused, who had not completed 18 years at the time of the offence, are entitled to the benefit of the juvenile offender under the new Act, leading to the setting aside of their conviction.
Final Decision: The conviction of the accused was set aside, and both appeals filed by the accused were disposed of accordingly. The State's appeal was dismissed.

JUDGMENT

M. Jeyapaul, J.

1. The first accused Roshan Lal and the second accused Lakhbir Singh were convicted for offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, but unfortunately they were sentenced to undergo only 10 years rigorous imprisonment each, which is quite against the spirit of the penal provision under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. Lakhbir Singh has preferred Criminal Appeal No. 842-SB of 2000 and Roshan Lal has preferred Criminal Appeal No. 857-SB of 2000. Aggrieved by the quantum of sentence imposed on them, the State on its part has also preferred Criminal Appeal No. 929-SB of 2000.

3. The case of the prosecution is that these two accused committed murder of the victim Harpreet Singh by strangulating his neck with a piece of cloth and took away the grocery and a silver ring possessed by the deceased.

4. Though there is no eye witness to the occurrence, the trial Court relying upon the chain of circumstances involving the accused to the commission of murder and the last seen theory established by the prosecution, returned a finding that the accused-appellants herein committed the murder of Harpreet Singh.

5. I have heard the submissions made by the learned Counsel appearing for the appellants as well as the Deputy Advocate General appearing for the State.

6. Though a challenge has been made in both the appeals preferred by the accused as to the conviction recorded against these accused under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, they have chosen to restrict their submissions only with respect to the age of the accused and the punishment awarded to them. The learned Counsel appearing for the accused-appellants taking inspiration from the punishment slip provided by the prosecuting agency, just before the verdict was passed by the trial Court, would submit that the age of both the accused had been given as 17 years therein. Referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hari Ram v. State of Rajasthan and another, 2009(3) GLJ 723, the learned Counsel for the accused-appellants would submit that the age of the accused will have to be determined in the spirit of the Juvenile Justice Act,1986. Despite of the fact that they had attained the age of 17 years, in as much as retrospective effect under Section 7-A of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 has been given. Therefore it is their submissions that the accused-appellants cannot be sent jail to undergo the life imprisonment for an offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code as they were juveniles below the age of 18 years at the time when the offence was committed.

7. In contrast, the learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for the State would submit that the trial Court had not given any reason for arriving at a conclusion that the age of the juvenile was 17 years. At any rate having convicted the accused-appellants under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, the trial Court should have awarded life imprisonment or death penalty as contemplated thereunder. The trial Court has no authority to reduce the sentence from life imprisonment on the flimsy ground that the accused were found to be youthful offenders. Therefore, it is his submission that the trial Court has committed a patent error in law while awarding sentence on the accused-appellants for offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

8. Though the trial Court had not entered into any discussion with respect to the age of the accused-appellants, the trial Court came to a decision that the accused had completed 17 years of age. At this juncture the learned Counsel appearing for the appellants drew the attention of this Court to the punishment slip submitted by the prosecuting agency before the trial Court wherein the age of both the accused was referred as 17 years. The trial Court might have been guided by the age of the accused referred to in the punishment slip. But at any rate the trial Court should have at least referred to the source of

Click Here to Read the rest of this document