Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Sunil Kumar Gupta vs State Of Punjab on 31 October, 2014
Bench: T.S. Thakur, Adarsh Kumar Goel, R. Banumathi
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2345 OF 2014.
(Arising out of R.P.(Crl.)No.390 of 2010 in
SLP(Crl.)No.2542 of 2010)
SUNIL KUMAR GUPTA Appellant(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB Respondent(s)
O R D E R
For the reasons stated in the review petition, orders dated 19th March, 2010 and 10th October, 2012 passed by this court in SLP(Crl.) No.2542 of 2010 and R.P.(Crl.)No.390 of 2010 in SLP(Crl.)No.2542 of 2010 respectively are recalled and special leave petition restored to its original number.
Leave granted.
The appellant was tried and convicted for an offence punishable under Section 396 of the Indian Penal code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana. The conviction and sentence when challenged before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana was affirmed by the Division Bench of that Court in Criminal Appeal Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Mahabir Singh Date: 2014.11.05 18:25:26 IST Reason: NO.475 of 2009. Aggrieved, the appellant preferred SLP(Crl.)No.2542 of 2010 which was dismissed by this Court by 2 an order dated 19th March, 2010. After the conviction and sentence, awarded to the appellant, had attained finality, the appellant filed the present review petition inter alia raising the question of his juvenility as on the date of the commission of the offence. In support of his contention that he was juvenile on the date of the occurrence he placed reliance upon the school record according to which he was born on 25 th December, 1985. Keeping in view the documentary evidence filed in support of that contention, we had by our order dated 9 th December, 2010 directed the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gonda, U.P., within whose territorial jurisdiction the appellant claims to have last attended the school, to hold an inquiry in terms of Rule 12 of Juvenile and Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007. The report submitted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gonda, was then considered by us by our Order dated 7th July, 2014 but found to be unsatisfactory. We had accordingly rejected that report and directed the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court to hold a fresh and proper enquiry into the question of the appellant's juvenility as on the date of the commission of the offence. Registrar (Judicial) of this Court has pursuant to the said direction conducted an enquiry 3 and submitted a report in which he has come to the following conclusions:
“The alleged offence was committed on 28.8.2002. Therefore, the age of the petitioner as on the date of commission of offence would be 16 years, 8 months and 3 days and in terms of provisions of Rule 12, sub-Rule 3(b) of the Juvenile Justice (Carel and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, the petitioner was a “juvenile” as on the date of commission of the offence.” We had by our Order dated 10th October, 2014 given an opportunity to counsel for the parties to examine the report and to respond to the same. While the report is in favour of the appellant and has been accepted by him, the State of Punjab has not chosen to file any objections nor has it found fault with the conclusion drawn by the Registrar on the basis of the enquiry conducted by him. Having gone through the report, we are also of the view that the same has properly discussed the documentary evidence adduced before the Registrar (Judicial) and correctly concluded that the appellant was indeed a juvenile as on the date of the commission of the offence being only 16 years, 8 months and 3 days old. In the circumstances, therefore, although the plea of the appellant being a juvenile was raised belatedly, the appeal is entitled to succeed keeping the proviso to Section 4 7A(1) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 which permits any juvenile to raise a plea regarding his juvenility before any court at any stage and even after final disposal of the case.
In the result, we allow this appeal but only in part and to the extent that while affirming the conviction recorded against the appellant we set aside the sentence awarded to him and direct his release from custody. The appellant has already undergone nine years of sentence and is at present about 40 years of age. In the circumstances, there is no question of committing him to any special home in terms of Section 9 of the Act. The appellant shall, therefore, be set free from custody if not otherwise required in connection with any other case.
.......................J (T.S. THAKUR) .......................J (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) .......................J (R. BANUMATHI) NEW DELHI DATED 31st OCTOBER, 2014.5
ITEM NO.33 COURT NO.2 SECTION IIB
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
R.P.(Crl.) No. 390/2010 In SLP(Crl) No. 2542/2010 SUNIL KUMAR GUPTA Petitioner(s) VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB Respondent(s) (with office report) (Along with record of Crl.Appeal No.475 of 2009) Date : 31/10/2014 This petition was circulated today. CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.S. THAKUR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE R. BANUMATHI For Petitioner(s) Mr. Mohan Kumar,Adv.
Mr. V. Sivasubramanian,Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. V. Madhukar,AAG Ms. Anvita Cowshish,Adv.
Mr. Mohit Nain,Adv.
Mr. Kuldip Singh,Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Heard.
For the reasons stated in the review petition, orders dated 19th March, 2010 and 10th October, 2012 passed by this court in SLP(Crl.) No.2542 of 2010 and R.P.(Crl.)No.390 of 2010 in SLP(Crl.)No.2542 of 2010 respectively are recalled and special leave petition restored to its original number.
Leave granted.
In terms of the signed order, the appeal is allowed:6
“In the result, we allow this appeal but only in part and to the extent that while affirming the conviction recorded against the appellant we set aside the sentence awarded to him and direct his release from custody. The appellant has already undergone nine years of sentence and is at present about 40 years of age. In the circumstances, there is no question of committing him to any special home in terms of Section 9 of the Act. The appellant shall, therefore, be set free from custody if not otherwise required in connection with any other case.” (MAHABIR SINGH) (VEENA KHERA) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER (Signed order is placed on the file)