Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1050 (RAJ)

Dhapiya v. State of Rajasthan

2011-05-17

R.S.CHAUHAN

body2011
JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 14.03.2011, passed by the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Jalore, whereby the learned Board has denied the benefit of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act 2000 ('the Act', for short) to the petitioner. The petitioner is also aggrieved by the order dated 26.03.2011, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jalore, whereby the learned Judge has rejected the petitioner's appeal against the order dated 14.03.2011. 2. Mr. V.N. Kalla, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has vehemently contended that Binja Ram (PW2 1), the complainant, has alleged that the petitioner had stolen Rs. 1,500/- from his house. Subsequently, he has falsely implicated the petitioner and has alleged that she had killed his son by throwing him into a well. According to the counsel, it is a case of false implication. While reading the complainant's testimony, the learned counsel has drawn the attention of this Court and has argued that the basic tenor of the testimony deals more with the theft of Rs. 1,500/-, rather than the alleged murder of the child. Secondly, even other eye-witness, namely Mangla Ram (PW-2), has clearly admitted in his cross-examination that he did not see the petitioner throwing the child into the well. Lastly, according to the learned counsel, Section 12 of the Act is a mandatory provision. Hence, the benefit of bail should be granted by this Court. 3. On the other hand, Mr. Mahipal Bishnoi, the learned Public Prosecutor, has strenuously contended that both Binja Ram (PW-1) and Mangla Ram (PW-2) have clearly stated that they did see the petitioner throwing the child into the well. Moreover, according to the post-mortem report, the child had suffered injuries on the back of his head due to which he expired. Thus, prima facie the offence under Section 302 IPC is made out against the petitioner. Therefore, it is not a case of false implication. Lastly, Section 12 of the Act is not a mandatory provision as it contains three exceptional circumstances under which the benefit of bail can be denied to a juvenile delinquent. One of the circumstances is that the bail should be denied in case the release would "defeat the ends of justice". Therefore, it is not a case of false implication. Lastly, Section 12 of the Act is not a mandatory provision as it contains three exceptional circumstances under which the benefit of bail can be denied to a juvenile delinquent. One of the circumstances is that the bail should be denied in case the release would "defeat the ends of justice". According to the learned counsel for the complainant, the parents would be shocked and their sense of justice would be defeated in case the alleged murderer is permitted to be set at liberty by giving her the benefit of bail. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned orders and considered the testimonies produced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. Binja Ram (PW-1), in his examination-in-chief, clearly states that from same distance, he saw the petitioner throwing his child into the well. Similar statement has been made by Mangla Ram (PW-2). Although, it has been suggested to the witness that there is likelihood that the child may have fallen, of his own, into the well. At this initial stage, it is not possible for this Court to consider the effect of the defence introduced by the petitioner. 6. It is highly unlikely that the petitioner, who happens to be a daughter-in-law of the family, would be falsely implicated in a case of murder merely because earlier allegedly she has stolen Rs. 1,500/-. After all, the parents would not have committed the murder of their own child. Moreover, there is no evidence to indicate that the child may have fallen into the well by himself. Therefore, this Court does not find any merit in the contention that it is a case of false implication. 7. In catena of cases, this Court has already held that Section 12 of the Act is not mandatory in its nature. For, Section 12 of the Act contains three exceptional circumstances wherein the benefit of bail can be denied to a juvenile delinquent. One of the circumstances is that in case the release would "defeat the ends of justice", then the bail can be denied. Justice is not a one-way street, only to be appreciated from the point of view of the accused. Justice is also a concept which would be alive both for the victim and for the society at large. One of the circumstances is that in case the release would "defeat the ends of justice", then the bail can be denied. Justice is not a one-way street, only to be appreciated from the point of view of the accused. Justice is also a concept which would be alive both for the victim and for the society at large. In case an alleged murderer were let out, that, too, the daughter-in-law of the family, who has allegedly committed the murder of a child of the family, obviously the sense of justice in the mind of the victim would be shaken to its roots. Moreover, even society would be shocked to know that the person who has allegedly thrown a child into a well is permitted to roam free by granting her the benefit of bail under the Act. Therefore, the ends of justice would be defeated in case the petitioner were granted the benefit of Section 12 of the Act. 8. Thus, this Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned orders and does not find any reason for granting the benefit of Section 12 of the petitioner. 9. Hence, this petition, being devoid of any merit is, hereby, dismissed. 10. However, by way of abundant caution, the Board is directed not to be influenced by any observations made in this order, but to decide the case objectively and strictly in accordance with law.Petition dismissed. *******