JUDGMENT Mr. Mehinder Singh Sullar, J. (Oral) - Assailing the prosecution version and its evidence in entirety, appellant-convict Surinder son of Pala (for brevity “the appellant”) has preferred the instant appeal to challenge the impugned judgment of conviction dated 6.9.2000 and order of sentence dated 7.9.2000, by virtue of which, he was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years, to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- and in default thereof to further undergo RI for a period of six months for the commission of an offence punishable under section 304 Part-1 IPC by the trial Court of Sessions Judge. 2. Tersely, the facts and evidence, unfolded during the course of trial, culminating in the commencement, relevant for disposal of the present appeal and emanating from the record, as claimed by the prosecution, is that on 18.6.1998, the appellant was quarreling with Chaman and Pala. They were abusing each other. Satish Kumar, son of complainant Dhanpati (PW1) asked him not to quarrel with each other. Thereupon, the appellant caught hold of Satish Kumar by his neck, felled him on the ground and gave him fists and kick blows in his abdomen and testicle. PW1, her daughter Rani (PW2) and brother-in-law (Jeth) Dharam Pal (not examined) intervened and tried to rescue Satish Kumar from the clutches of the appellant. Thereafter, he fled away from the place of occurrence. Satish Kumar was removed to Hospital at Karnal in an injured condition for treatment, but as luck would have been, he succumbed to his injuries on the way. 3. Narrating the sequence of events, in all, the prosecution claimed that the appellant had caused fists and kick blows in the abdomen and testis of Satish Kumar, culminating into his death. In the background of these allegations and in the wake of complaint (Ex.PA) of complainant Dhanpati (PW1), the present criminal case was registered against the appellant, vide FIR No.431 dated 19.8.1998 (Ex.PA/1), on accusation of having committed an offence punishable u/s 302 IPC by the police of Police Station Sadar Karnal in the manner depicted here-in-above. 4. After completion of the investigation, the final police report (challan) was submitted by the police against the appellant to face the trial for the indicated offence. 5. 4. After completion of the investigation, the final police report (challan) was submitted by the police against the appellant to face the trial for the indicated offence. 5. Having completed all the codal formalities, the appellant was charged by the Sessions Judge for having committed an offence punishable under section 302 IPC, by means of charge sheet dated 17.11.1998. As he did not plead guilty and claimed trial, therefore, the case was slated for evidence of the prosecution. 6. The prosecution, in order to substantiate the charge framed against the appellant, examined complainant Dhanpati as PW1, her daughter Rani as PW2, Dr.Satish Kumar Khattar as PW3, Prem Kumar constable as PW4 & ASI Umed Singh as PW5 in oral evidence, besides tendering affidavit (Ex.PB) of HC Rajpal, Affidavit (Ex.PB/1) of constable Chattar Singh, affidavit (Ex.PC) of constable Siri Bhagwan, affidavit (Ex.PD) of constable Ram Kishan, report (Ex.PE) of Pathology department, copy of post mortem report (Ex.PE/1), report (Ex.PF) of FSL, scaled site plan (Ex.PF/1), copy of inquest report (Ex.PG) and police request for conducting post mortem examination (Ex.PJ) in documentary evidence. This is the entire evidence brought on record by the prosecution. 7. After the close of the prosecution evidence, the statement of the appellant was recorded. The entire incriminating material/evidence was put to enable him to explain any circumstance appearing against him therein, as contemplated under section 313 Cr.PC. However, he has denied the prosecution evidence in its entirety and pleaded false implication in the following manner :- “The deceased died natural death. I caused no injury to Satish Kumar now deceased. I have been falsely implicated in this case by the complainant party and they conspired with the police to falsely involve me in this case.” 8. The trial Judge, after taking into consideration the entire oral as well as documentary evidence brought on record by the prosecution, acquitted the appellant for the commission of an offence punishable u/s 302 IPC. At the same time, he was convicted and sentenced u/s 304 Part-1 IPC, by way of impugned judgment of conviction & order of sentence in the manner described here-in-above. 9. The appellant did not feel satisfied and preferred the instant appeal to challenge the impugned judgment of conviction & order of sentence. That is how I am seized of the matter. 10. 9. The appellant did not feel satisfied and preferred the instant appeal to challenge the impugned judgment of conviction & order of sentence. That is how I am seized of the matter. 10. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, having gone through the evidence on record with their valuable assistance and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the present appeal as regards the conviction of the appellant is concerned. 11. As is evident from the record that the prosecution version is duly corroborated by PW1 complainant Dhanpati, who has, inter-alia, stated, on oath, that the appellant was quarreling with Chaman and Pala. As soon as, her son Satish Kumar asked him (appellant) not to quarrel, in the meantime, the appellant caught hold of her son by neck, felled him on the ground and gave fists and kick blows in his abdomen and testis. The occurrence was witnessed by PW2 Rani and Dharampal. She maintained that when they intervened, then, the appellant fled away from the spot. Satish Kumar became unconscious. When he was removed to hospital at Karnal in an injured condition, he succumbed to his injuries on the way. 12. Not only that, PW2 Rani, daughter of Dhoop Singh, who has also witnessed the occurrence, has also corroborated the statement of PW1. The ocular version of prosecution finds corroboration from the statement of Dr.Satish Kumar Khattar (PW3), who conducted the postmortem examination on the dead body of Satish Kumar, vide PMR (Ex.PE/1). PW3 found the following two injuries on his person:- 1. There was a contusion 4 cmx 2 cm on the right side of the neck middle part of anterior aspect 4 cm away from the midline. On dissection, there was extra vasation of blood in the underlying tissues. 2. There was contusion 2 cm x 1 cm in size 5 cm below the injury no.1. Extravasation of blood was found in the underlying tissue. 13. After considering the report (Ex.PE/1) of department of Pathology of PGIMS Rohtak and report (Ex.PF) of Chemical Examiner, it was opined that no definite cause of death could be given. However, possibility of death due to cardiacarrhythmias cannot be ruled out. 14. Sequelly, ASI Umed Singh Investigating Officer (PW5) testified his investigation, whereas PW4 Prem Kumar constable prepared scaled site plan (Ex.PF/1). However, possibility of death due to cardiacarrhythmias cannot be ruled out. 14. Sequelly, ASI Umed Singh Investigating Officer (PW5) testified his investigation, whereas PW4 Prem Kumar constable prepared scaled site plan (Ex.PF/1). Instead of reproducing the statements of PW1 to PW5 in toto and in order to avoid the repetition, suffice it to say that they have duly corroborated the prosecution version on all vital counts. All the prosecution witnesses were cross-examined at length, but no substantial material could be elicited in their cross examination to dislodge the prosecution case, which is otherwise duly proved by cogent, oral as well as documentary evidence brought on record by the prosecution as discussed here-in-above. The learned counsel for the appellant did not point out any other legal infirmity or major contradictions and inherent improbabilities, much less cogent, to discard the reliable and trustworthy evidence of the prosecution. 15. Faced with the situation, the learned counsel has fairly acknowledged that in view of the cogent evidence on record, he will not be in a position to contest the conviction of the appellant any more. He has no other argument/material/ground, much less cogent, to assail the prosecution version, except his juvenility. 16. Be that as it may, but there is yet another aspect of the matter, which can be viewed entirely from a different angle. The perusal of the record would reveal that in the wake of application, a Coordinate Bench of this Court (Rekha Mittal, J.) directed the trial Court to conduct an inquiry with regard to the juvenility of the appellant, by virtue of order dated 22.3.2013. In compliance thereof, having recorded the evidence of the parties, the trial Court concluded that the appellant was less than 17 years of age and was juvenile at the relevant time of commission of the offence, by means of report dated 2.7.2013. 17. Meaning thereby, it stands proved on record that the appellant was juvenile at the relevant time of occurrence, he is entitled to the benefit of the provisions of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 and Rules made thereunder (hereinafter to be referred as “the Act & Rules”) as envisaged in Section 7A. Consequently, he cannot possibly be directed to be sent to special home for a period not more than three years as contemplated u/ss 15(1)(g) & 16 of the Act. Consequently, he cannot possibly be directed to be sent to special home for a period not more than three years as contemplated u/ss 15(1)(g) & 16 of the Act. This matter is no more res integra and is now well settled. 18. An identical question came to be decided by Hon’ble Apex Court in case Dharambir v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr., [2010(3) Law Herald (SC) 1942] : 2010(5) SCC 344 , wherein having interpreted the provisions of the Act and Rules made thereunder, it was ruled as under:- “15. Having held so, the next question for consideration is as to what order on sentence is to be passed against the appellant for the offences committed by him under Sections 302 and 307 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code, correctness whereof has not been put in issue before us. Section 15 of the Act of 2000 provides for various orders which the Juvenile Justice Board (for short “the Board”) may pass against a juvenile when it is satisfied that the juvenile has committed an offence, which includes an order directing the juvenile to be sent to a special home for a period of three years. Section 16 of the Act of 2000 stipulates that where a juvenile who has attained the age of sixteen years has committed an offence and the Board is satisfied that the offence committed is so serious in nature that it would not be in his interest or in the interest of other juvenile in a special home to send him to such special home and that none of the other measures provided under the Act is suitable or sufficient, the Board may order the juvenile in conflict with law to be kept in such place of safety and in such manner as it thinks fit and shall report the case for the order of the State Government. Proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 16 of the Act of 2000 provides that the period of detention so ordered shall not exceed in any case the maximum period provided under Section 15 of the said Act, i.e., for three years. In the instant case, as per the information furnished to us, the appellant has undergone an actual period of sentence of 2 years, 4 months and 4 days and is now aged about thirty five years. In the instant case, as per the information furnished to us, the appellant has undergone an actual period of sentence of 2 years, 4 months and 4 days and is now aged about thirty five years. We feel that, keeping in view the age of the appellant, it may not be conducive to the environment in the special home and to the interest of other juveniles housed in the special home, to refer him to the Board for passing orders for sending the appellant to special home or for keeping him at some other place of safety for the remaining period of less than eight months, the maximum period for which he can now be kept in either of the two places. 16. Accordingly, while sustaining the conviction of the appellant for the afore-stated offences, we quash the sentences awarded to him and direct his release forthwith, if not required in any other case. The appeal succeeds partly to the extent indicated above.” 19. What cannot possibly be disputed here is that the appellant has already undergone more than 2½ years of his substantive sentence out of total awarded sentence by the trial Court. Legally speaking, he cannot be directed to be detained in special home for a period not more than three years as postulated in sections 15 and 16 of the Act. Therefore, to me, no useful purpose would be served in remitting the case for fresh trial after a lapse of period of more than 15 years, particularly, when the ratio of law laid down in the aforesaid judgment “mutatis mutandis” is applicable to the facts of this case and is the complete answer to the problem in hand. 20. In the light of aforesaid reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant appeal filed by the appellant is hereby dismissed. Consequently, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence of fine are maintained. However, the awarded sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the period of 2½ years already undergone by him. Therefore, the impugned order of sentence is modified to the extent and in the manner depicted here-in-before. 21. Needless to mention that necessary consequences and compliance will naturally follow accordingly. ---------0.B.S.0------------ —————————