Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(ALL) 712
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Hon'ble Siddhartha Varma,J. and Hon'ble Vinod Diwakar,J.
Ved Prakash And Others – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 261 of 1982 at Allahabad
Petitioner: Virendra Singh and Aarushi Khare Amicus Curiae
Respondent: A.G.A.
The provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000 apply to a juvenile tried along with adult accused, even if the trial was conducted treating the juvenile as an adult.
Headnote:
Criminal Law - Murder - Sections 302/34 IPC - Juvenile Justice Act
Fact of the Case:
The case involves the murder of Shyam Singh, where his wife Kailashpati lodged an FIR alleging that Shyam's brother Balveer Singh and his four sons, along with Balveer's brother-in-law Surendra, were involved in the murder. The motive was that Shyam had executed a will in favor of his three daughters, which the accused could not tolerate.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the testimony of the eyewitness, Kailashpati (PW-2), to be reliable and upheld the conviction of the accused Chandra Prakash, Ved Prakash, and Rajesh. However, the court held that since Rajesh was a juvenile at the time of the incident, he would be governed by the provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act and awarded the minimum possible sentence.
Issues: 1. Whether the trial of a juvenile along with adult accused was valid? 2. Whether the eyewitness account of PW-2 was reliable? 3. Whether the motive for the murder was established?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The trial of a juvenile along with adult accused is not valid as per Sections 24 of the Children Act, 1960 and 18 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000. 2. The eyewitness account of PW-2 was found to be reliable and could form the basis of conviction. 3. The motive of the murder, i.e., the execution of a will in favor of the daughters, was not a strong motive and did not help the accused's case.
Final Decision: The appeal is dismissed with respect to the conviction of the accused Rajesh. However, since Rajesh was a juvenile at the time of the incident, he is awarded the minimum possible sentence under the Juvenile Justice Act.
Hon'ble Siddhartha Varma,J.
Hon'ble Vinod Diwakar,J.
1. Upon an incident having taken place on 18.4.1981 whereby Shyam Singh had died, a first information report was got lodged by his wife – Kailashpati. The first information report had stated that the brother of Shyam Singh, namely, Balveer Singh accompanied by his four sons, namely, Vijayvir Singh alias Vijay, Ved Prakash, Chandra Prakash alias Pappu and Rajesh alias Raju and the brother-in-law of Balveer, namely, Surendra (sala) had reached the house of the deceased. The motive assigned in the first information report was that the deceased Shyam Singh had executed a Will in favour of his three daughters and, therefore, the accused Balveer Singh and his four sons wanted to do away with him. In the first information report, it was very categorically stated that the four sons of Balveer Singh and his brother-in-law were armed with lathis and swords. Specifically, it has been stated that Chandra Prakash, Rajesh alias Raju, Ved Prakash had swords whereas Balveer Singh and Surendra had lathis in their hands.
At the time of the incident, another brother of the deceased, namely, Kripal Singh had reached the spot. Apart from the brother, Dharmveer Singh son of Chiranjeet Chauhan and Bhagwana Singh son of Kathera Singh had also reached at the place of incident. The first information report states that not only there were three eye-witnesses present but many others of the area had also reached the spot. The first informant in the first information report had stated that the first information report was written on the dictation of the first informant by her daughter – Vimla.
2. After the lodging of the first information report, the Police got into action and various relevant materials found on the spot were recovered and kept in Police custody. The accused Chandra Prakash, it was alleged, had also made a confessional statement before the Police on 18.4.1981 itself and had also under Section 27 of the Evidence Act got recovered the sword as was used in the incident. The sword was recovered in the presence of two eye-witnesses, namely, Ram Singh and Ashok Kumar Tyagi.
3. Upon completion of the investigation, the Police submitted its charge sheet and the court of sessions, thereafter, on 3.8.1981 framed charges against the accused Shyam Singh, Chandra Prakash alias Pappu, Ved Prakash, Balveer Singh, Rajesh alias Raja and Surendra Singh.
4. When the trial commenced, from the side of the prosecution 7 prosecution witnesses were produced and examined.
5. Upon the conclusion of the Trial, the IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Bijnor, convicted the accused, namely, Chandra Prakash alias 2 of 13 Pappu, Ved Prakash and Rajesh alias Raju for the offences under Sections 302/34 IPC and they were thereafter sentenced for rigorous imprisonment for life. By the same order, Surendra Singh, Vijayvir Singh and Balveer Singh were acquitted. Thereafter, the instant Criminal Appeal was filed challenging the judgement and order dated 27.1.1982 passed by the IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Bijnor.
6. The P.W. - 1 who was the doctor who had conducted the postmortem proved the port-mortem report and categorically mentioned as to how the injuries which had resulted in the death of the deceased had been inflicted on the body of the deceased.
7. The P.W. - 2 is the wife of the deceased and she is an eye-witness of the incident and she gives the entire eye-witness account saying that the deceased – Shyam Singh and she herself were sleeping in the veranda of their house and a functional lantern was there in the veranda. She had also stated that in the eastern side of the veranda, her brother-in-law (dewar), namely, Kripal Singh was also sleeping. She has stated that Balveer Singh, the accused, was her brother-in-law (dewar) and Vijay, Ved Prakash, Chandra Prakash and Rajesh were his sons and Surendra was the brother-in-law (sala) of Balveer Singh. She recognized all the six accused who were present in the court. She thereaft
