Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Kiran vs State Of Uttrakhanda on 17 November, 2014
Bench: J. Chelameswar, S.A. Bobde
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2428 OF 2014
(Arising out of SLP(Crl)No.3459/2014)
KIRAN ...APPELLANT
VERSUS
STATE OF UTTRAKHAND ...RESPONDENT
O R D E R
Leave granted. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The appellant was tried for the offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 and Section 307 read with Section 34 and Section 507 of the Indian Penal Code (for short “IPC”). The trial Court found the appellant guilty of the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 and Section 324 read with Section 34 of the IPC and awarded the punishment of life imprisonment and rigorous imprisonment for 3 years for the two offences respectively and the same was confirmed by the High Court. Hence this appeal.
In this appeal, the learned counsel for the appellant argued that the appellant was a 'juvenile' within the meaning of the expression as defined in Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, and therefore, his trial by a regular Criminal Court constituted under the Criminal Procedure Code is Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Om Parkash Sharma Date: 2014.11.18 17:16:53 IST vitiated.
Reason:2
As to the question whether the appellant was juvenile as on the date of commission of offence, this Court thought it fit to call for a report from the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge/1st Fast Track Court, Haridwar to inquire into the said question of fact and submit a report to this Court. The learned Additional Sessions Judge by his report dated 26.09.2014 stated that the age of the appellant as on the date of commission of offence was 15 years 27 days. The respondent State does not dispute the correctness of the finding recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge.
In view of the fact that the appellant was a juvenile on the date of commission of offence, we have no option but to record the finding that the entire trial is vitiated, and therefore, the conviction of the appellant cannot be sustained.
The appeal is thus allowed. The conviction of the appellant (in case FIR No.45/1994, Police Station, Jwalapur, Haridwar, Uttarakhand) is set aside. If the appellant is still in prison, the respondent is directed to be set him at liberty forthwith, if not required legally in any other case.
....................J.
[ J. CHELAMESWAR ]
NEW DELHI …...................J.
NOVEMBER 17, 2014 [ S.A. BOBDE ]
3
ITEM NO.40 COURT NO.7 SECTION II
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 3459/2014
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 03/04/2012 in CRLA No. 254/2002 passed by the High Court Of Uttarakhand At Nainital) KIRAN Petitioner(s) VERSUS STATE OF UTTRAKHANDA Respondent(s) (with appln. (s) for bail and exemption from filing c/c of the impugned judgment and office report) Date : 17/11/2014 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J. CHELAMESWAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.A. BOBDE For Petitioner(s) Mr. Dushyant Parashar,Adv.
Mr. Nagendra Singh,Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. U.K. Iniyal,AG Mr. Rajiv Nanda,Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Leave granted.
In terms of the signed order, the appeal is allowed.The conviction of the appellant (in case FIR No.45/1994, Police Station, Jwalapur, Haridwar, Uttarakhand) is set aside. If the appellant is still in prison, the respondent is directed to be set him at liberty forthwith, if not required legally in any other case.
[O.P. SHARMA] [INDU BALA KAPUR]
COURT MASTER COURT MASTER
(Signed order is placed on the file)