Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Ram Naresh vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh on 16 January, 2023
Bench: Ajay Rastogi, Bela M. Trivedi
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. _________ OF 2023
[@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO. 8858 OF 2022]
RAM NARESH Appellant (s)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Respondent(s)
ORDER
Leave granted.
The present appeal has been filed assailing the conviction and sentence, confirmed by the High Court on dismissal of appeal preferred at the instance of the appellant under Judgment impugned dated 04.09.2018 under Sections 302, 452 and 404 IPC and sentenced to life.
It reveals from the order dated 16.09.2022 of this Court that SLP of petitioner no.1 (Badri s/o Ramdhar Rajpoot) was dismissed and so far as petitioner no.2 (Ram Naresh s/o Badri) i.e. the present appellant is concerned, submission was that on the date of alleged incident i.e. 13/14.04.2008 as per Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Jayant Kumar Arora Date: 2023.01.17 15:35:20 IST the school record of petitioner no.2 he had not crossed the age Reason: of 18 years on the date of alleged commission of crime. 2 Taking note of the submissions made by counsel for the appellant and pursuant to later order dated 21.10.2022, the matter was sent to the District Judge Mahoba, District Mahoba, Uttar Pradesh to refer the matter to the Juvenile Justice Board to conduct an inquiry in terms of Section 7(A) of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children), Act, 2000 and the report be submitted to this Court.
Pursuant to order of this Court dated 21.10.2022, the report dated 22.11.2022 has been submitted by the Juvenile Justice Board, Mahoba and after inquiry, a finding has been recorded that petitioner no.2 was 17 years 9 months 5 days old on the date of the alleged commission of crime and was held to be a juvenile on the date of commission of crime i.e. 13/14.04.2008 i.e. below 18 years and he was held to be a juvenile in conflict with law. Accordingly, the report was made available to the respective parties pursuant to order dated 10.01.2023.
Counsel for the respondent has not questioned the finding which has been recorded by the Juvenile Justice Board, Mahoba in its report dated 22.11.2022. 3 This Court in similar circumstances, in Hakkim v. State represented by Deputy Superintendent of Police (2014) 13 SCC 427 held as under:
“21. Therefore, it is shown that the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 1410 of 2011, who was A1, was only 17 years and 9 months on the date of the occurrence, the decision in Ajay Kumar v. State of M.P. [(2010) 15 SCC 83 : (2013) 2 SCC (Cri) 128] applies wherein in the similar circumstances it was held as under: (SCC p. 84, paras 67) “6. Rule 98 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Juvenile Justice Rules, 2007’) provides the procedure as to how a case of a juvenile who is in conflict with law should be disposed of. The same reads as follows:
‘98. Disposed of cases of juveniles in conflict with law.—The State Government or as the case may be the Board may, either suo motu or on an ap plication made for the purpose, review the case of a person or a juvenile in conflict with law, determine his juvenility in terms of the provisions contained in the Act and Rule 12 of these Rules and pass an ap propriate order in the interest of the juvenile in con flict with law under Section 64 of the Act, for the im mediate release of the juvenile in conflict with law whose period of detention or imprisonment has ex ceeded the maximum period provided in Section 15 of the said Act.’
7. In the light of the aforesaid provisions, the maximum period for which a juvenile could be kept in a special home is for three years. In the instant case, we are in formed that the appellant who is proved to be a juvenile has undergone detention for a period of about approxi mately 14 years. In that view of the matter, since the appellant herein was a minor on the date of commission of the offence and has already undergone more than the maximum period of detention as provided for under Section 15 of the Juvenile Justice Act, by following the provisions of Rule 98 of the Juvenile Justice Rules, 4 2007 read with Section 15 of the Juvenile Justice Act, we allow the appeal with a direction that the appellant be released forthwith.”
22. Having regard to the said legal position, the very same consequences set out in the said decision should apply to the case of the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 1410 of 2011 who has already suffered more than the maximum pe riod of detention as provided under the Juvenile Justice Act. The said appellant was enlarged on bail by this Court's order dated 1872011 [Samsudheen v. State, SLP (Cri) No. 5940 of 2010, order dated 1872011 (SC)] . Therefore, while confirming his conviction as per the judgment im pugned in this appeal, we hold that he is entitled for the benefit of the provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act and the sentence already undergone by him shall be sufficient for the above conviction. Therefore, he shall not be detained any more in this case unless his detention is warranted in any other case. Criminal Appeal No. 1410 stands disposed of on the above terms.” After we have heard counsel for the parties, we uphold the conviction of the appellant under Section 302, 452 and 404 IPC and find no reason for interference of this Court at least on merits of conviction held by the trial Court and confirmed by the High Court under the judgment impugned. At the same time, we take into consideration the report submitted by the Juvenile Justice Board, Mahoba holding that he was a juvenile on the date of commission of crime i.e. 13/14.04.2008 and the period of sentence undergone by him is almost 14 years by this time without remission.
In the given facts and circumstances, while upholding conviction of appellant, we hold that he is entitled for the benefit of 5 the provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act and the sentence undergone by him shall be sufficient for the above conviction and accordingly, he shall be released forthwith unless his detention is warranted in any other case. Ordered accordingly.
The appeal is allowed in the above terms. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, is/are disposed of.
.......................J. [ AJAY RASTOGI ] .......................J. [ BELA M. TRIVEDI ] New Delhi;
JANUARY 16, 2023.
6
ITEM NO.38 COURT NO.5 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). 8858/2022
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 04-09-2018 in CRA No. 389/2011 passed by the High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad) RAM NARESH Petitioner(s) VERSUS THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Respondent(s) (IA No. 121226/2022 - APPLICATION U/S 7-A [9(2) old] OF JUVENILE JUSTICE (CARE AND PROTECTION OF CHILDREN) ACT, 2015) (IA No. 121225/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) Date : 16-01-2023 This matter was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE BELA M. TRIVEDI For Petitioner(s) Mr. Vijay Kumar, AOR Ms. Vidushi Garg, Adv.
Ms. Vithika Garg, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Ms. Ruchira Goel, AOR Mr. Adit Jayeshbhai Shah, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Leave granted.
The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order. The operative portion of the order is reproduced hereunder :-
“In the given facts and circumstances, while upholding conviction of appellant, we hold that he is entitled for the benefit of the provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act and the sentence undergone by him shall be sufficient for the above conviction and accordingly, he shall be released forthwith unless his 7 detention is warranted in any other case. Ordered accordingly.” Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, is/are disposed of.
(JAYANT KUMAR ARORA) (VIRENDER SINGH) ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS BRANCH OFFICER (Signed order is placed on the file)