Karnataka High Court
Laxmi D/O Ningappa Sarvand vs The State Of Karnataka on 7 January, 2025
Author: Ravi V.Hosmani
Bench: Ravi V.Hosmani
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:159
CRL.RP No. 100465 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 100465 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
LAXMI D/O NINGAPPA SARVAND,
AGED 17 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT,
R/BY HER MOTHER RENUKA,
R/O. GUDI HONNATTI VILLAGE,
TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI-581115.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI S.P.KANDAGAL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH HALAGERI P.S.
R/BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SMT.GIRIJA S.HIREMATH, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED U/S 102 OF THE
Digitally
signed by
BHARATHI
JUVENILE JUSTICE (CARE AND PROTECTION OF CHILDREN) ACT,
BHARATHI H M
HM Date:
2025.01.08
15:38:00
+0530
2015 PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS PERTAINING TO CRIMINAL
APPEAL NO.115/2024 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE DISTRICT
CHILDREN COURT, HAVERI AT HAVERI (IN THE COURT OF THE
ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, FTSC-I, HAVERI) AND
EXAMINE THE LEGALITY, CORRECTNESS AND PROPRIETY OF THE
FINDING, SENTENCE AND ORDER RECORDED IN THE PROCEEDINGS
IN THE ABOVE APPEAL AND PASS AN ORDER SETTING ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 21.10.2024 PASSED BY THE DISTRICT CHILDREN
COURT, HAVERI AT HAVERI (IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL.DISTRICT
AND SESSIONS JUDGE, FTSC-I, HAVERI) DISMISSING THE
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:159
CRL.RP No. 100465 of 2024
CRL.APPEAL NO.115/2024 WHILE UPHOLDING THE ORDER DATED
10.06.2024 PASSED BY THE SR.CIVIL JUDGE AND
CJM/PRL.MAGISTRATE JUVENILE JUSTICE BOARD, HAVERI, IN J.C.
31/2023 FOR OFFENCE U/S 342, 307 OF IPC AND PASS AN ORDER
SETTING ASIDE ORDER DATED 10.06.2024 PASSED BY THE SR.CIVIL
JUDGE AND CJM/PRL.MAGISTRATE JUVENILE JUSTICE BOARD,
HAVERI, IN J.C. 31/2023 FOR OFFENCE U/S 342, 307 OF IPC,
TRANSFERRING CASE OF THE PETITIONER TO THE CHILDREN COURT
AT HAVERI, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI
ORAL ORDER
Challenging order dated 21.10.2024 passed by District Children Court at Haveri in Criminal Appeal no.115/2024 and order dated 10.06.2024 passed by Court of Senior Civil Judge and C.J.M./Principal Magistrate Juvenile Justice Board, Haveri in Halageri P.S. Crime no.57/2023 transferring case of petitioner to Children's Court at Haveri for trial, this revision petition is filed.
2. Sri S.P.Kandagal, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner was 17 years of age and apprehended on 06.04.2023 on a complaint filed by -3- NC: 2025:KHC-D:159 CRL.RP No. 100465 of 2024 Devendragoud Gundagatti that complainant and petitioner were engaged to be married on 31.03.2023 and when they went to a park on outskirts of town on 06.04.2023, petitioner asked complainant to cover his eyes with his hands tied behind and then she attempted to murder him with knife. Complainant somehow managed to escape and lodged complaint. Based on complaint, Halageri Police Station had registered P.S.Crime no.57/2023 for offences punishable under Section 114, 342, 307, 201 r/w 34 of IPC. It was submitted that on 05.06.2023, petitioner was released on bail and on 27.10.2023, charge sheet was filed. Thereafter petitioner was to be assessed by Board under Section 15 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (for short, 'Act'). It was submitted though none of offences alleged against petitioner qualified as 'heinous offences' defined under Section 2(33) of Act, Board passed impugned order on 10.06.2024 referring matter to Children's Court at Haveri for orders under Section 18(3) of Act. It was submitted, though questioned same in Criminal Appeal no.115/2024 before District Children's Court at Haveri, it came to be dismissed without proper consideration. -4-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:159 CRL.RP No. 100465 of 2024
3. It was submitted Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Shilpa Mittal v. State of NCT of Delhi and another reported in 2020 SC 405 had examined scope of assessment under Section 15, whether offences for which minimum punishment of 7 years was not prescribed would fall within definition of "heinous offences" and held in negative. It was further submitted, High Court of Bombay in case of Saurabh Jalinder Nangre and others v. State of Maharashtra through the Islampur Police Station, Sangli reported in 2008 SCC Online Bombay 6295 had specifically dealt with case of child in conflict with law against whom offence under Section 307 was alleged and held same would not fall within heinous offences. It was submitted ratio of decision was infact approved in Shilpa Mittal's case supra and same would squarely cover matter in issue. On said ground learned counsel sought for allowing revision petition.
4. Smt.Girija S.Hiremath, learned HCGP for respondent on other hand opposed petition. It was submitted that maximum punishment for Section 307 of IPC was upto -5- NC: 2025:KHC-D:159 CRL.RP No. 100465 of 2024 10 years and in case of injuries inflicted in furtherance of offence, punishment prescribed was imprisonment for life. Therefore, offence would be heinous offence and as assessment by Board that petitioner was able to duly understand consequences of her act, impugned order requiring petitioner to be tried before Children's Court was justified and did not call for interference.
5. Heard learned counsel. Perused impugned orders.
6. From above, point that would require for consideration is:
"Whether impugned orders suffer from impropriety and call for interference?"
7. In order to satisfy requirement of Section 15 of Act, two conditions require to be satisfied. That offence alleged should be a heinous offence and child should be above age of 16 years. Admittedly as per certificate issued by Headmaster of Government Higher Primary School, Gudihonnatti dated 06.04.2023, date of birth of petitioner is 06.04.2006. Thus age of petitioner is 17 years. Insofar as -6- NC: 2025:KHC-D:159 CRL.RP No. 100465 of 2024 other requirement 'heinous offences' are defined under Section 2(33) as follows:
"2(33) "heinous offences" includes the offences for which the minimum punishment under the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) or any other law for the time being in force is imprisonment for seven years or more;"
8. Offences alleged against petitioner are abetment under Section 114, wrongfully confinement under Section 342 carrying maximum punishment of 1 year, attempt to commit murder under Section 307 carrying maximum punishment of 10 years and in case of causing injury in furtherance of act, maximum sentence of imprisonment for life while Section 201 is for offence of destruction of evidence in case of capital offence carrying maximum punishment upto 7 years. Thus, none of offences alleged against petitioner prescribe minimum sentence of 7 years and would not fall within definition of 'heinous offences' under Section 2(33) of Act. Ratio in case of Saurabh Jalinder Nangre would squarely apply.
-7-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:159 CRL.RP No. 100465 of 2024
9. While passing impugned orders, neither Board nor Children's Court have examined this important material aspect of matter. Therefore impugned orders would suffer from impropriety. Point for consideration is answered in affirmative. Consequently, following:
ORDER Revision Petition is allowed. Impugned orders are set aside. Matter shall be considered by Juvenile Justice Board.
SD/-
(RAVI V.HOSMANI) JUDGE CLK CT:PA LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 44