Back
2025 Supreme(All) 2881
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
SIDDHARTH, AVNISH SAXENA, JJ.
Kanhaiya and Others - Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 2125 of 1984
Decided On : 23-07-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : Gagan Mehta, Kalp Nath, Parmeshwar Kr. Chaudhary
The court ruled that minors involved in crimes must be treated as youthful offenders, requiring specific sentencing measures, differing from adult sentencing norms.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302, 147 and 149 - U.P. Children Act, 1951 - The appellants were convicted for murder stemming from an unlawful assembly, resulting in a life sentence and additional imprisonment for unlawful assembly; However, they were minors at the time of the incident. The trial judge did not adequately consider their status as youthful offenders under the Act, leading to an improper sentence without examining their age specifics. (Paras 2, 11, 19, 35, 41)
(B) Juvenility - The court concluded that the lower court erred in concluding the appellants were above twelve but did not determine their status as minors, impacting sentencing. The court highlighted the relevance of appropriate sentencing measures for juvenile offenders. (Paras 11, 39, 41)
Facts of the case:
The case arose from an incident on April 8, 1982, where the deceased was attacked by multiple individuals during a dispute regarding a blocked drain. The appellants were alleged participants in the assault on the deceased, resulting in fatal injuries.
Findings of Court:
The court determined that while the appellants participated in the unlawful assembly, their sentences should reflect their status as youthful offenders, not as adults.
Issues: The primary issue was whether the trial court had appropriately addressed the minors' status and the implications for sentencing under applicable statutes.
Ratio Decidendi: The appellate court found that the trial court failed to properly classify the appellants as youthful offenders under the U.P. Children Act, leading to improper sentencing that needed correction, prioritizing their juvenile status over adult sentencing norms.
Result: Appeal partly allowed; Conviction upheld, but sentences reduced to period already undergone.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. hearing and procedural background. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. initial overview and background of the case. (Para 3) |
| 3. applications for declaring minors. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 4. review of trial court judgments on minors' ages. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 5. age references and trial acknowledgments. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 6. detailing u.p. children act provisions. (Para 11 , 12) |
| 7. considerations for sentencing youthful offenders. (Para 18 , 38) |
| 8. factual details of the incident. (Para 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 9. assessment of witness reliability and evidence. (Para 25 , 26 , 27) |
| 10. role and implication of accused family members. (Para 35 , 36) |
| 11. final judgment and directives. (Para 41 , 42) |
JUDGMENT :
Avnish Saxena, J.
1. Heard Sri Kalpnath, learned counsel for the surviving appellant nos. 4 and 5, Mrs. Manju Thakur, learned AGA-1st for the State and perused the record.
2. This criminal appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 31st July, 1984 passed by Special Judge, Varanasi in Sessions Trial No. 240 of 1982, State Vs. Kanhaiya and others , arose out of case crime no. 203 of 1982, P.S. Bhelupur, District Varanasi, whereby the five appellants have been convicted for committing the offence of murder after forming unlawful assembly under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC and Section 147 IPC. EACH convict has been sentenced to life imprisonment u/s 302 IPC and one year’s rigorous imprisonment for committing offence under Section 147 IPC. It is directed that both the sentences shall run concurrently.
3. Out of five accused-appellants, namely, Kanhaiya, Mannu, Bahadur @ Bhagudar, Chhedi and Madan, first three accused-appellants passed away during the pendency of appeal. Hence, the appeal was dismissed as abated against Kanhaiya and Mannu by order dated 2nd February, 2018, whereas appeal against Bahadur @ Bhagudar was dismissed as abated by order dated 30th August, 2022.
On the point of declaration of appellant nos. 4 and 5 as ‘Child’ :-
4. The remaining two accused, namely, Chhedi and Madan were claimed to be minor and below 16 years of age at the time of incident. Therefore, the learned counsel for the appellants no. 4 and 5 has filed two applications, viz., Crl. Misc. Application No. 1 of 2018 to declare appellant no.4, Chhedi @ Chhedi Lal son of Gulab, as ‘child’ and Crl. Misc. Application No. nil of 2018 for declaring appellant no.5, Madan, as a ‘child’.
5. Hence prior to considering the merits of the grounds taken in appeal, it would be expedient to consider the above noted applications moved by the learned counsel for the appellants, who has relied on the case of Ashok Kumar Mehra and another Vs. State of Punjab , AIR 2019 SC 1903 on the point that the application for declaring a person as juvenile could be moved and considered at any stage, including the appellate stage.
6. We have perused the later part of the impugned judgment under challenge in appeal and found that the issue of juvenility of accused- Chhedi and Madan was raised even at the time of trial before the trial judge and the trial judge while convicting the accused has made an observation that the accused persons are more than 12 years of age and held them responsible for committing the crime. The relevant paragraph of the impugned judgment is required to be quoted underneath :-
“As regards the last submission of the learned defence counsel that accused Chhedi and Madan are minor and therefore, it is most improbable that they could have participated in this occurrence, it is to be observed that any person of 12 or more than 12 years of age could be held responsible for committing the crime. Undisputedly both the accused Chhedi and Madan were more than 12 years of the age at the time of occurrence. Therefore, it could not be said that they could not have participated in the occurrence.”
7. On the point of age of the appellant, Chhedi @ Chhedi Lal son of Gulab, it is mentioned in the accompanying affidavit that the date of birth of accused-Chhedi is 3rd April, 1969
