IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Siddharth, Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra, JJ.
Rahatjan - Appellant
Vs.
State of Uttar Pradesh - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. - 72 of 1984
Decided On : 03-05-2024
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 in hat very field.
Police investigated the case and filed charge-sheet against the appellant for charge under section 302 IPC. Learned C.J.M., Rampur took cognizance of the offence and committed the case to the court of session for trial. On commencement of trial, learned trial court framed charge under section 302 IPC against the appellant and he was put to trial for said charge. The prosecution examined as many as nine witnesses in support of charge.
4. Akhtar Ali (PW-1), who is the father of the deceased Firasat and is de-facto complainant in this case. He has stated that Firasat Ali, aged 10-11 years, had gone to pray Asar ki Namaz on 5.3.1983, in the evening and thereafter he had not returned. At that time, he was wearing a shirt, Baniyan, Trouser and woollen sweater. He made search on the next day at about 9:00 am. Khurshid Ahmad met him and told about his having seen Firasat alongwith Rahat Jan going towards the side of cane centre after the period of Asar ki Namaz. Thereafter, Chhotey and Noor Ali also met him and they also told him about their having seen Firasat and Rahat Jan going towards the side of Bijlighar on 5.3.1983 at about 6:00 pm. The accused Rahat Jan had a field towards Bijlighar. On having these informations, he went to the house of Rahat Jan and found Rahat Jan not available at his house. He was told by Safadar Mian about Rahat Jan having not returned to the house since 6:00 pm yesterday. He got the report Ex. Ka-1, written from Hashim Husain and went to the police station and lodged the same. It is also stated that the accused is in the habit of indulging in sodomy and his activities were made known to this effect. He has been cross examined at length. He has stated that Firasat Ali deceased had not gone to offer prayer of Asar Ki Namaz in his presence rather he came to know from his wife on return from the jungle. On that day, he had gone to his field, which is at distance of a furlong from his house. Asar Ki Namaz is being offered at about 5:00 pm. He has stated to have participated in Maghrib Ki Namaz and after offering the prayer there, he came to his house and was informed about Firasat having not returned till then. He enquired from the children with whom he used to play but he could not get his whereabouts. It is also stated that, in the night he had not gone to lodge the report with a thinking that Firasat might have gone to the house of his Mamu in village Khempur and in the morning he went to village Khempur to enquire and thereafter returned to his village when Khurshid, Chhotey and Noor Ali met him and informed about their having seen Firasat with the accused after the hours of Asar Ki Namaz. He has also stated that towards the east of his house, there is an open piece of land where there is a Pakar tree. This land
Hiralal Mallick vs. The State of Bihar
Karan alias Fatiya vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Laxman Prasad v State of Madhya Pradesh
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra
Shailendra Rajdev Pasvan v State of Gujarat
Jitendra Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2013) 11 SCC 193
Hari Ram v. State of Rajasthan (2009) 13 SCC 211: (2010) 1 SCC(Cri) 987
Pratap Singh v. State of Jharkhand
AI
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....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.