Punjab-Haryana High Court
State Of Haryana vs Parmodh Kumar Alias Pappu on 12 July, 2013
Author: Mehinder Singh Sullar
Bench: Mehinder Singh Sullar
Crl. Appeal No. S-622-SB of 1987 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Crl. Appeal No. S-622-SB of 1987 (O&M)
Date of decision :- 12.07.2013
State of Haryana
...Appellant
Versus
Parmodh Kumar alias Pappu
..Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR
Present: Mr. Sagar Deswal, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana
for the appellant.
Mr. Pritam Saini, Advocate
for the respondent.
****
Mehinder Singh Sullar, J. (Oral)
The contour of the facts and material, which needs a necessary mention, for the limited purpose of deciding the instant petition and oozing out from the record, is that, initially a criminal case was registered against Parmodh Kumar respondent-convict, vide FIR No. 43 dated 25.01.1986, under Sections 363 and 307 IPC, by the police of Police Station Sadar Panipat. Although, he was convicted for the pointed offences but was released on probation, by the trial Judge, by way of judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 28.02.1987.
2. Aggrieved thereby, the Crl. Appeal No.S-622-SB of 1987, filed by the State of Haryana, was accepted and the conviction of the respondent- convict was maintained. However, the order of sentence/probation was set Crl. Appeal No. S-622-SB of 1987 -2- aside and he was ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment, for a period of three years, by this Court, by virtue of judgment dated 14.11.2002.
3. The respondent-convict did not feel satisfied and preferred Crl. Appeal No. 1303 of 2003, which was decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court, by means of order dated 16.03.2011. The operative part of which is as under:-
"Mr. Dutta, the learned counsel for the appellant has at the very initial stage raised two arguments before us. He has first argued that the order of the High Court had been given without notice to the appellant as the notice that had been issued had not been served on him and secondly as the accused was, as per the Court proceedings, 17 years of age and therefore a Juvenile under the provisions of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, his case therefore should be remanded to the Trial Court on the question of the age of the appellant. In the light of these facts we feel that the age of the appellant requires a fresh look keeping in view the amendment made in the year 2000 whereby the age of a male juvenile has been increased from 16 to 18 years. We accordingly set aside the judgment of the High Court and remit the case to the High Court which shall, if required, call upon the Sessions Judge Karnal to submit a report as to the age of the appellant and then pass orders appropriate to the circumstances."
4. At the same time, the respondent-accused has also placed on record the attested copy of his matriculation examination certificate (Annexure R-1), to prove that he was juvenile, at the relevant time. In this manner, an enquiry is required to be conducted, after affording the adequate opportunities to the parties to produce their evidence, to ascertain the exact age of the respondent-convict, on the date of commission of offences, for the purpose of determination of his juvenility, as per provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. Therefore, the learned Sessions Judge, Karnal, is directed to conduct an enquiry, to Crl. Appeal No. S-622-SB of 1987 -3- determine the juvenility of the respondent and to submit the report, in this relevant connection, within a period of three months.
5. The parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the Sessions Judge, Karnal, on 26.08.2013, for further proceedings in the matter.
6. The Registry is directed to list this main appeal for hearing as and when the indicated report of Sessions Judge, is received.
July 12, 2013 (Mehinder Singh Sullar) naresh.k Judge