Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1622 (BOM)

Sanjay v. State of Maharashtra

2015-07-17

A.M.THIPSAY

body2015
JUDGMENT A.M. Thipsay, J. 1. The appellant has been convicted of offences punishable under Section 451 of Indian Penal Code (IPC), Section 376 IPC read with Section 511 IPC and Section 377 IPC, by the Additional Sessions Judge, Malegaon. The appellant has been sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for 6 months and a fine of Rs. 200/- with respect to the offence punishable under Section 451 IPC, Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 years and a fine of Rs. 300/- with respect to the offences punishable under Section 376 IPC read with Section 511 IPC, and Rigorous Imprisonment for 1 year and a fine of Rs. 200/- with respect to the offence punishable under Section 377 IPC. Being aggrieved by his conviction and the sentences imposed upon him, the appellant has preferred the present appeal. During the pendency of the appeal, the appellant made an application to this court raising a claim of juvenility. According to him, on the date of the commission of the alleged offences, the appellant was a 'Juvenile', as contemplated under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. Since, such a claim was raised by the appellant, this court by the order dated 2nd February 2015, directed an inquiry to be held into the age of the appellant. The inquiry was directed to be held by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. 2. Accordingly, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has held an inquiry into the matter. After holding an inquiry, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has come to the conclusion that the appellant was a 'Juvenile' on 24th April 1990, i.e., the date when the offences in question allegedly took place. He has submitted his report to this court accordingly. 3. I have gone through the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge coming to the conclusion that the appellant was a 'Juvenile' at the time of the commission of the alleged offences. I find that, the procedure adopted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge for holding the inquiry and the conclusion arrived at by him, is proper and legal. 4. The conclusion is, therefore, accepted. It is declared that the appellant was a 'Juvenile' on the date of the alleged offences, i.e., 24th April 1990. 5. The appellant, therefore, could not have been tried by the Additional Sessions Judge. The trial against the appellant is non-est. 6. 4. The conclusion is, therefore, accepted. It is declared that the appellant was a 'Juvenile' on the date of the alleged offences, i.e., 24th April 1990. 5. The appellant, therefore, could not have been tried by the Additional Sessions Judge. The trial against the appellant is non-est. 6. In view of this, the judgment and order of conviction of the appellant, and the sentences imposed upon him, are set aside. 7. The appellant shall remain present before the Juvenile Justice Board on 10th August 2015, and the Juvenile Justice Board shall deal with him in accordance with law. 9. Record and Proceedings be send back forthwith. The Appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.