The main legal point established in the judgment is that a juvenile in conflict with law cannot be sentenced to undergo life imprisonment, and the maximum period for which a juvenile may be sent to a special home is only three years, as per the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.

JUDGMENT :

Vivek Varma, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A., for the State.

2. This appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 26.11.1983 passed by Sessions Judge, Ballia in Sessions Trial No. 96 of 1983, whereby the appellant Dhurandhar Singh has been convicted for offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and was further convicted under Section 25 Arms Act and sentenced to one year R.I. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

3. At the outset, learned counsel for appellant submitted that an application was filed on 22.05.16 to decide the appeal of the appellant as a juvenile in conflict with law. The said application was supported by an affidavit in which class -V and VII school leaving certificate of the appellant issued by the Headmaster of the Primary Vidalaya, Ibrahimabad, Ballia, as well as High School Examination 1986 Certificate issued by the Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U.P. studied from Sudisthi Baba Inter College, Ballia, was enclosed disclosing the date of birth of the appellant as 03.01.66. It was contended that from the above material it is ascertainable that on the date of commission of the crime, that is 17.03.83, the appellant was below 18 years in age and therefore was entitled to the benefit of the provisions of Juvenile.

4. By an order dated 28.07.16, the learned AGA was granted three weeks time to obtain instructions and to file counter affidavit in response to the application filed by the appellant.

5. Pursuant to the above order, a counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the State. Thereafter, by order dated 22.08.16, the Juvenile Justice Board, Ballia was directed to consider and decide the claim of juvenility set up by the appellant, after affording opportunity of hearing to both the parties, in accordance with Rules, preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt of record.

6. A report of the Juvenile Justice Board, Ballia dated 6.11.16 is placed before us. From a perusal of record it reveals that accused-appellant was aged about 17 years 02 months and 14 days on the date of incident i.e.17.03.83. The Juvenile Justice Board, while conducting inquiry on the claim of juvenility, had issued notice to the informant. However, neither the informant appeared nor he submitted any objection with regard to the age of the appellant. In the inquiry so conducted, the statement of Srikrishna Ram (paricharak) and representative of the Principal of Sri Sudisthi Baba Inter College, Ballia was recorded. He had produced the scholar register and cross list of the institution. In the cross list, roll number was entered as 1443545 and the date of birth is mentioned as 03.01.66. The witness was also cross examined. The statement of Santosh Kumar (Assistant Teacher) of Primary Vidalaya, Ibrahimabad, Balia was also recorded and he was also cross examined.

7. The inquiry by the Juvenile Justice Board had been conducted as per Rules. Opportunity was given to complainant as well as accused-appellant to lead evidence and thereafter on the basis of date of birth recorded in educational certificate, it had come to a definite conclusion that the appellant was 17 years 2 months and 14 days old at the time of the incident.

8. Further, no appeal/revision has been filed against the order dated 16.11.2016 passed by Juvenile Justice Board declaring accused appellant Juvenile, and that no objection on behalf of State had also been filed challenging the report dated 16.11.2016 passed by Juvenile Justice Board. Thus, we accept the report and hold that the appellant was a juvenile as defined by Section 2(35) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, on the date of the incident.

9. Now, since the appellant was a Juvenile in conflict with law, on the date of incident, and presently he has crossed 63 years age, and further no other ground of appeal having been raised before us