Back
SIDDHARTH, RAM MANOHAR NARAYAN MISHRA
Rahatjan – Appellant
Versus
State of Uttar Pradesh – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
R.M.N. Mishra, J.
1. Heard Sri Vimlendu Tripathi and Sri Kuldeep Johri, learned counsels for the appellant and Sri Sushil Kumar Pandey, learned AGA for the State.
2. This criminal appeal has been filed against the judgement and order dated 22.12.1983 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Rampur in Session Trial No. 83 of 1983 arising out of Case Crime no. 35/1983 under section 302 IPC, P.S. Suar, District Rampur whereby appellant has been convicted of charge under section 302 IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life.
3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 5.3.1983 after 6:00 pm, the accused Rahatjan had committed the murder of Firasat, a young boy of 12 years of age by strangulating him in his wheat field, situated in village Aglaga, P.S. Suar, District Rampur. It is also said that on 6.3.1983 on being arrested, the accused made an extra judicial confession of his having caused the death of Firasat by strangulating him with the help of Angochha and he helped the police personnel in making available the dead body of deceased Firasat inside his wheat field and muffler with the help of which, Firasat was strangulated by him by taking out the same from the rahat situated
Juveniles charged with offences must be treated according to juvenile law; failure to do so results in invalidation of convictions and sentences.
FIR can be relied upon by court as dying declaration on part of deceased.
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 court upheld the rape conviction but quashed the sentence under juvenile law, stressing rehabilitation over retribution for juvenile offenders.
Juveniles must be tried under juvenile laws, and prison sentences cannot exceed statutory limits for juveniles. The appeal allowed the convict's release.
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 findi....
The court confirmed that a claim of juvenility can be raised at any stage, impacting sentencing under the Juvenile Justice Act.
(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 indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
