Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 644 (GAU)

Mangal Murmu v. Mangal Murmu

2013-09-02

ANIMA HAZARIKA

body2013
JUDGMENT Anima Hazarika, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the Judgment and Order dated 27.08.2008 passed in Sessions Case No. 31/2007 by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, (FTC) Kokrajhar whereby the accused appellant herein was convicted under Section 304 Part II IPC and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment (RI for short) for 10 (ten) years, also to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-(Rupees five thousand) only in default, further RI for 6 (six) months. Challenging the aforesaid Judgment and Order of conviction, the instant appeal has been filed by the appellant from jail. 2. During the course of argument, learned Amicus Curiae brought to the notice of the Court that on the date of occurrence, the age of the accused appellant was less than 18 years and, therefore, on the date of occurrence, he was a juvenile in conflict with law. 3. On the submission so made by the learned Amicus Curiae, this Court directed the Sessions Judge, Kokrajhar to conduct an enquiry to ascertain the age of the accused appellant as on 01.09.2004, i.e., the date of occurrence in terms of Section 7-A of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (Act 2000, for short) as well as Rule 12 of the Rules framed thereunder. 4. Accordingly, as per direction of this Court, the learned District & Sessions Judge, Kokrajhar made an enquiry with regard to the age of the accused appellant on the date of occurrence and submitted the enquiry report on 21.06.2013 before this Court. 5. The enquiry report so submitted in respect of the point whether the accused appellant, Sri Mangal Murmu, was a juvenile on the date of the alleged occurrence, the learned District & Sessions Judge has found that the age of the accused appellant on the date of the occurrence i.e. 01.09.2004 was 17 years 2 months 1 day. Therefore, the accused appellant was a juvenile in conflict with law on the date of the alleged occurrence. 6. The learned Amicus Curiae has submitted at the Bar that the appellant is in custody since the date of judgment i.e. 27.08.2008 which would clearly show that the accused is in custody for more than 5 (five) years. On the other hand, as per Section 15 of the Act 2000, maximum period of sentence of an accused is 3 (three) years. On the other hand, as per Section 15 of the Act 2000, maximum period of sentence of an accused is 3 (three) years. Therefore, the accused appellant herein needs to be released forthwith as per provision laid down in the Act 2000. 7. Heard Ms D. Borgohain, learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the accused appellant. Also heard Mr. B.J. Dutta, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam appearing for the respondent State. 8. I have perused the judgment under conviction as well as the enquiry report submitted by the District & Sessions Judge, Kokrajhar along with the exhibits appended thereto. As per the enquiry report, admittedly the accused was a juvenile in conflict with law on the date of occurrence. Therefore, while confirming the conviction, considering the period of custody already suffered by the appellant, it is directed that he be released from custody forthwith if he is not required in connection with any other case. 9. Normally this Court would have remanded the matter to be dealt with by the appropriate court, but considering the long passage of time and period of custody, the present order has been passed. 10. Appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent. 11. Send a copy of this order to the Superintendent, District Jail, Kokrajhar. 12. Before parting with the case, I would like to put on record the Court's appreciation to Ms D. Borgohain, learned Amicus Curiae for her valuable assistance rendered in arriving at the decision as aforesaid. She is entitled to a professional fee which is quantified at Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) only. Send down the Lower Court Records. Appeal allowed.