Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 2022 (ALL)

Raghuraj Tiwari v. State of U. P. and Another

2010-07-12

SHRI KANT TRIPATHI

body2010
Shri Kant Tripathi,J.;- 1. Heard the learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned AGA for the State of U.P. and perused the record. 2. It appears that the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.2, Gonda has passed the order dated 6.3.2010 in S.T. No. 277 of 1993 (State Vs. Baldev and others) declaring the respondent no. 2 as a juvenile on the basis of his date of birth recorded in the school record. 3. According to the prosecution case, the occurrence took place on 24.3.1993 and the date of birth of the respondent No. 2, according to the school record, is 30.9.1977, therefore, the respondent no.2 was juvenile on the date of the occurrence. 4. The learned Additional Sessions Judge was perfectly justified in placing reliance on the school record duly proved by C.W. 1 Devendra Kumar and CW 2 Santosh Kumar. The finding of fact based on legal evidence can not be interfered with in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. 5. If the revisionist's date of birth per the school record is treated as 30.9.1977, he was 15 years, 3 months and 24 days on the date of the occurrence. The learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 submitted that on the date of the occurrence, The Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 was in force and in that Act a person was considered to be a juvenile if he was below 16 years on the date of the occurrence. The learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 further submitted that the revisionist had completed more than 18 years before the date of the commencement of the Act of 2000, therefore, he could not be treated as a juvenile despite the fact that he was less than 16 years on the date of occurrence. In this connection, the learned counsel for the respondent no.2 relied on Pratap Singh Vs. State of Jharkhand 2005 (2) Criminal Court Cases 334, Jabar Singh vs. Dinesh and another, 2010 (69) ACC 326 and Munne Vs. State of U.P. 2006 (12) SCC 697 . 6. The learned counsel for the revisionist, in reply submitted that by the Amendment Act of 2006 certain amendments were made in various sections including section 20 of the Act of 2000 and thereby an explanation was added in section 20. After the amendment, the principles laid down in Pratap Singh's case (supra) have no material bearing. 6. The learned counsel for the revisionist, in reply submitted that by the Amendment Act of 2006 certain amendments were made in various sections including section 20 of the Act of 2000 and thereby an explanation was added in section 20. After the amendment, the principles laid down in Pratap Singh's case (supra) have no material bearing. The explanation to section 20 of the Act of 2000 is extracted as follows: Explanation- In all pending cases including trial, revision, appeal or any other criminal proceedings in respect of a juvenile in conflict with law in any court, the determination of juvenility of such a juvenile shall be in term of clause (l) of Section 2, even if the juvenile ceases to be so on or before the date of commencement of this Act and the provisions of this Act shall apply as if the said provisions had been in force, for all purposes and at all material times when the alleged offence was committed." 7. The provisions of Act of 2000 as amended by the Amending Act of 2006 have been considered by the Apex Court in the case of Hari Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan 2009 (13) SCC 211 . The Apex Court held: "The said intention of the legislature was reinforced by the amendment effected by the said amending Act to Section 20 by introduction of the proviso and the Explanation thereto, wherein also it has been clearly indicated that in any pending case in any court the determination of juvenility of such a juvenile has to be in terms of Section 2 (l) even if the juvenile ceases to be so "on or before the date of commencement of this Act" and it was also indicated that the provisions of the Act would apply as if the said provisions had been in force for all purposes and at all material times when the alleged offence was committed." 8. In the case of Jabar Singh (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent no. 2, the Amendments of 2006 incorporated in the Act of 2000 were not taken into account and is silent in regard thereto, therefore, the view expressed in Hari Ram's case (supra) taking into account the amendments would prevail. 9. It appears that there is some calculation error in regard to the exact age of the respondent no.2 on the date of occurrence. 9. It appears that there is some calculation error in regard to the exact age of the respondent no.2 on the date of occurrence. When the date of birth of the respondent no.2 is 30.9.1977, he was merely 15 and a half year on 24.3.1993 i.e. date of occurrence, therefore, he was less than 16 years. The respondent no.2 was apparently a juvenile on the date of occurrence. The impugned order is perfectly correct and requires no interference. 10. Therefore, the revision is dismissed summarily.