Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 380 (GAU)

Raju Basumatary v. State of Assam

2013-06-06

TINLIANTHANG VAIPHEI

body2013
Tinlianthang Vaiphei, J.—Both Mr. M. Sarania, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B.S. Sinha, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor appearing for the State are heard at length. The petitioner in this criminal revision is questioning the legality of the judgment dated 16.2.2003 convicting him u/s 447/325 IPC and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- i/d to undergo imprisonment for another 2 months as upheld by the judgment and order dated 31.7.2004 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bongaigaon in Criminal Appeal No. 1(1)/2004. 2. In the course of admission hearing, the petitioner for the first time had raised the issue of juvenility by claiming that he was a juvenile at the time of commission of offence and as such, he could not be punished or sentenced under any law, and can be dealt with only in terms of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2000 ("the Act" for short). This had prompted this Court to pass the order dated 4.6.2012 in the connected Criminal Misc. Case No. 416/2012 directing the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bijni to make an enquiry on the claim of juvenility raised by the petitioner. The learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bijni whereupon conducted the enquiry and at the conclusion of the enquiry, submitted his report, which is dated 30.11.2012 and is now taken on board. The operative part of the enquiry report is reproduced hereunder:-- From the case record of GR 54/98 as well as from the order of the Hon'ble High Court dated 04.06.2012 it is found that the alleged occurrence took place on 18.03.98. Thus the alleged occurrence took place about 14 years ago. Hence on the basis of the report of the Medical Board it is found that age of the accused was 14 to 12 years when the occurrence took place. 3. On the basis of the above, it is found and held that the accused Raju Basumatary was a juvenile on the date of occurrence. Accordingly this enquiry report is submitted. The supplementary case record started for holding this enquiry and the case record of GR Case No. 54/98 are also sent along with this enquiry report. 4. 3. On the basis of the above, it is found and held that the accused Raju Basumatary was a juvenile on the date of occurrence. Accordingly this enquiry report is submitted. The supplementary case record started for holding this enquiry and the case record of GR Case No. 54/98 are also sent along with this enquiry report. 4. The findings in the enquiry report are not disputed by the State respondent Under the circumstances, I hold that the petitioner was a juvenile at the time of the commission of offence i.e. on 18.3.1998. Having accepted that the petitioner was juvenile on the date of incidence, the next question to be considered is as to whether this Court should remit the matter to the Juvenile Justice Board for passing appropriate order in accordance with Section 15 of the Act or to dispose of the case by this Court itself at this stage. 5. The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor submits that as the petitioner is now 30 years old, it may not be desirable or appropriate to refer him at this stage to the Juvenile Justice Board and as such, an alternative appropriate order may be passed by this Court for disposal of this case. I find force in the contention of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. The kind of orders which can be passed by this Court are adumbrated under sub-section (a)(b)(c)(f) and (g) of sub-section (1) of Section 15 of the Act. On the other hand, Section 16 of the Act interdicts the Juvenile Justice Board from sentencing a juvenile in conflict with law to any imprisonment. When this Court makes a suggestion that the petitioner should be set at liberty by making him to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-under sub-section (b) of sub-clause (1) of Section 15 of the Juvenile Justice Act, Mr. M. Sarania, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as the petitioner is merely a cultivator and does not have any regular and steady income, it would be impossible for him to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-. On going through me record, it is evident that the petitioner is merely a cultivator by profession, and may not have adequate disposable income to fork out this amount. Under the circumstances, he may be required to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- for compensating the victim. 10,000/-. On going through me record, it is evident that the petitioner is merely a cultivator by profession, and may not have adequate disposable income to fork out this amount. Under the circumstances, he may be required to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- for compensating the victim. I am not unmindful of the fact that the grievous hurt sustained by the victim at the hands of the petitioner cannot be adequately compensated for in money. I am also quite aware that this amount hardly adequate to compensate the victim for the injury caused to him by the petitioner, but then the paying capacity of the petitioner leaves with no alternative but to order payment of this meager amount as a token gesture to help him in a small way. Consequently, this criminal revision is disposed of with the following orders:-- 1) Both the impugned judgments of the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bijni and the learned Sessions Judge, Bongaigaon, in so far as the sentence is concerned, are hereby set aside. 2) The petitioner is directed to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- to the victim namely, Sukhdhan Rai within two months from today through the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bijni. 3) On receipt of the fine money, the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bijni will take necessary steps for payment of the same to the victim after proper identification. 4) On payment of the fine, the petitioner shall be set at liberty, and his bail-bonds cancelled. Transmit the L.C.R. forthwith.