Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 724 (PAT)

Meraz Sain v. State of Bihar

2012-05-03

GOPAL PRASAD, NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH

body2012
ORDER This is another illustrative case showing gross injustice and total indifferences and insensitivity at the hands of the judicial officer. 2. The sole appellant was arrested in relation to Siwan Town P.S.Case no.184 of 1999 (G.R.No.2084/99) on charge of having committed murder, after having committed rape. The deceased was a minor girl of about 10 years. The appellant was taken into custody and had been in custody till he was granted bail by this Court by order dated 21.9.2011.Thus he had been in custody for about eleven years from the age of about 13-14 years to the age of 25 years. 3. It appears that while granting bail, this Court noticed that the trial court on 2nd of September, 2006, while recording the statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., assessed his age to be 20 years. If this age is taken to be approximately correct, then the offence being of 30.11.1999, the appellant would be about 13 years of age on the date of occurrence. Thus, he would be a juvenile in conflict with law. It is this fact that persuaded the Court to grant bail. 4. It may be noted here that having recorded the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.II, Siwan, convicted the appellant on 31.3.2007 and sentenced him to life imprisonment in Sessions Trial no.243 of 2003.This Court having noticed the aforesaid fact of juvenility, referred the matter to Juvenile Justice Board, Siwan, to enquire into the matter and give a finding with regard to the age. The Juvenile Justice Board, Siwan, in a proceeding being Misc. Case no.2 of 2012/J.E. 163 of 2011 upon taking evidence of the parents of the boy, who deposed that he would be 25 years as of date, referred the matter to the Medical Board as there was no other certificate or documentary proof in support of the age. The Medical Board assessed the age 24-25 years as of date. 5. On basis of the aforesaid evidence the Juvenile Justice Board came to a finding that as of date i.e. on date of order being passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, which would be 2.1.2012, he would be 25 years, which would make him about 13 years old on the dare of occurrence. 5. On basis of the aforesaid evidence the Juvenile Justice Board came to a finding that as of date i.e. on date of order being passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, which would be 2.1.2012, he would be 25 years, which would make him about 13 years old on the dare of occurrence. Similar would be the age if one considers the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and the age, as assessed by the Court therein. Upon these facts we hold that the appellant was about 13-14 years of old when he is said to have committed the said offence and that would make him to be juvenile in conflict with law. State has not challenged the finding. 6. At that time when the offence was committed i.e. 30.11.1999, it was the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, that was in force. In view of Section 2 (h) of the said Act, the appellant would be a juvenile in terms of the aforesaid Act as he was below the age of 16 years. The trial of such a person itself is prohibited much less sentencing and much less being put behind the bar in prison. Notwithstanding the aforesaid, he remained in jail .Then we have Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, which came in effect from 1.4.2001. This Act, during the pendency of the trial, was further amended in the year 2006 by Amendment Act, 2006 (Act 33 of 2006) and now what was provided by virtue of Section 7A read with Section 20, it is specifically provided that irrespective of the age of the person when the trial is conducted, his age on the date when the offence is said to have been committed is relevant and if on that date he is juvenile, then he cannot be proceeded as an ordinary criminal but has to be proceeded in terms of the provisions of the Juvenile Justices Act, 2006. The Juvenile Justice Act in terms prohibits sentencing of a juvenile in conflicts with law to life imprisonment. It prohibits imprisonment of a juvenile in conflict with law. Thus seen the legislative enactment and the legislative intendment, the very trial of this appellant, his detention in prison, conviction and sentence stands vitiated. He could not have been for a day in prison. Unfortunately, he had remained in prison for over a decade with hardened criminals. It prohibits imprisonment of a juvenile in conflict with law. Thus seen the legislative enactment and the legislative intendment, the very trial of this appellant, his detention in prison, conviction and sentence stands vitiated. He could not have been for a day in prison. Unfortunately, he had remained in prison for over a decade with hardened criminals. Every aspect of the matter at the level of the trial court was contrary to law, rather in defiance thereof. 7. We wonder why when the facts were on record, Court failed to take note thereof and given benefits which the law confers. This only shows total judicial insensitivity on part of the trial judge, we regret. 8. Be that as it may, in view of the facts and circumstances, noted above, we have no option but to allow this appeal and set aside the judgment of conviction and sentence. As the appellant is already on bail, he is discharged from the liability of bail bond.