Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 3313 (PNJ)

Amrinder Singh v. State of Punjab

2006-08-17

T.P.S.MANN

body2006
JUDGMENT T.P.S. MANN, J. 1. Order passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Moga on 5.9.2005 while charging the petitioner and others under Section 306 IPC, has been challenged by filing the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 2. As per the prosecution case Smt. Rashwinder Kaur @ Palo committed suicide on 27.7.2004 in the area of city of Moga for which the petitioner and others were arraigned as accused in the FIR, which was got registered by Ramesh Singh, brother of the deceased under Section 306 IPC. After the presentation of the challan and the commitment of the case to the Court of Sessions, Additional Sessions Judge, Moga heard the arguments on charge and after perusing the challan, statements recorded in the Court and documents annexed with the challan, found a prima facie case against all the accused, including the petitioner for having committed an offence punishable under Section 306 IPC. 3. The petitioner has taken the plea that he was born on 18.10.1988. He attached birth certificate issued by the Registrar of the Births and Deaths (Annexure P.1) and also middle standard examination certificate (Annexure P .2), wherein the petitioner was shown to be born on the said date. More so, at the time of grant of bail to the petitioner on 12.5.2005, Additional Sessions Judge, Moga noted that the petitioner was a juvenile offender. On the basis of the aforementioned circumstances, the petitioner pleaded that on the date of occurrence i.e. 27.7.2004, he was below 16 years of age and, thus, a juvenile in view of the provisions contained in Section 2(k) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and protection of Children) Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Once he was shown to be a juvenile, he could not be charged jointly along with other accused, who were not juveniles. 4. Reply has been field by the State wherein the stand is taken that the petitioner did not produce his certificate regarding date of birth before the trial Court nor any application was moved in this behalf earlier before the said Court. However, it was stated in para 6 of the reply that if the petitioner proves himself to be a juvenile, he was entitled to be dealt with under the Act. 5. I have heard the arguments and perused the petition and the replies, besides the documents brought on the record. 6. However, it was stated in para 6 of the reply that if the petitioner proves himself to be a juvenile, he was entitled to be dealt with under the Act. 5. I have heard the arguments and perused the petition and the replies, besides the documents brought on the record. 6. From the perusal of birth certificate (Annexure P.1) and school certificate (Annexure P.2'.), it is prima facie clear that the petitioner was born on 18.10.1988. He was, thus, less than 16 years of age on 27.7.2004, the day the occurrence in question had taken place. Section (k) of the Act defines a juvenile or a child as under : “2(k) ‘juvenile’ or ‘child’ means a person who has not completed eighteenth years of age.” 7. It is, thus, apparent that the petitioner was a juvenile as he was less than 16 years of age on the relevant date. The factum of the petitioner being a juvenile offender was also observed by Additional Sessions Judge, Moga on 12.5.2005, while granting the benefit of bail to him. 8. Section 18(1) of the Act prohibits the joint proceedings of a juvenile and person not a juvenile. The said provision reads as under : “18 (1) No joint proceeding of juvenile and person not a juvenile (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 223 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973(2 of 1974) or in any other law’ for the time being in force, no juvenile shall be charged with or tried for any offence together with a person who is not a juvenile.” 9. It is now to be seen as to how to proceed with the case where a juvenile is being charged of an offence. Once it is prima facie clear that the petitioner was a juvenile, Additional Sessions Judge, Moga is under duty to conduct an enquiry into the question as to whether the petitioner was a juvenile offender on the date of the occurrence. In case he holds that the petitioner was the juvenile, he is duty bound to transmit the case ‘I’ of the petitioner to the Juvenile Board set up under Section 4 of the Act for conducting an enquiry as per the provisions of Section 14 of the Act. The petitioner could not be charged for any offence together with the person, who was not a juvenile. The petitioner could not be charged for any offence together with the person, who was not a juvenile. Mere fact that no specific plea had earlier been taken by the petitioner regarding his age, was no ground to disentitle the petitioner from being considered as a juvenile offender especially when on 12.5.2005, Additional Sessions Judge, Moga, noted him to be a juvenile offender 10. In view of the above, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to Additional Sessions Judge, Moga to conduct enquiry into the age of the petitioner by calling upon the petitioner on the one hand and the State/complainant on the other to bring evidence and/or documents in that respect. After receiving the said evidence, the said Court would give a finding on the same. If the petitioner is found to be a juvenile, his case be transmitted to the Juvenile Justice Board for conducting the enquiry as envisaged by Section 14 of the Act. In the event of the petitioner not rbeing found to be a juvenile offender, the proceedings against him shall continue together with his co- accused who are not juvenile. 11. The aforementioned enquiry to be conducted by Additional Sessions Judge, Moga shall be concluded within a period of three months from the date the copy of this order is received.