Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 2396 (JHR)

Habil Nag v. State Of Jharkhand

2018-10-29

H.C.MISHRA, RATNAKER BHENGRA

body2018
JUDGMENT 1. Heard learned senior counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the State. 2. Pursuant to the order dated 03.1.2018, the report of the Juvenile Justice Board, Khunti, has been received, which shows that after a detailed enquiry into the claim of the juvenility of the sole appellant Habil Nag, and also taking into consideration the report of the Medical Board constituted for the purpose, the age of the appellant on the date of occurrence, i.e., 02.5.2008, was found to be between 9 to 14 years. 3. In order dated 3.1.2018, it finds mentioned that according to the certificate regarding date of birth of the appellant, the date of the birth of the appellant is 17.5.1997, according to which, on the date of occurrence the appellant was aged about 11 years only, which appeared to be ridiculous, as if a child aged about 11 years is produced before the Court, that would immediately attract the attention of the Court. However, that was not done in this case, and the appellant faced the trial and was convicted and sentenced by the Trial Court below, for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. During the pendency of this appeal, the plea of juvenility of the appellant was taken for the first time, and the matter was referred to the Juvenile Justice Board, Khunti, to enter into an enquiry into the claim of the juvenility of the appellant, if necessary, with the help of the Medical Board. The report of the Juvenile Justice Board shows that taking into consideration the report of the Medical Board it has been found that on the date of occurrence, i.e., 02.5.2008, the appellant was aged between 9 to 14 years. This clearly shows that the appellant Habil Nag, was a juvenile on the date of alleged occurrence. 5. We have looked into the Lower Court Record which shows that during trial the appellant had remained in custody for more than three years and then he was granted bail. The appellant is presently in custody from the date of the impugned Judgment, i.e., 29.8.2017, i.e., still more than one year. 6. 5. We have looked into the Lower Court Record which shows that during trial the appellant had remained in custody for more than three years and then he was granted bail. The appellant is presently in custody from the date of the impugned Judgment, i.e., 29.8.2017, i.e., still more than one year. 6. In view of the report received from the Juvenile Justice Board, Khunti, since the appellant has been found to be a juvenile on the date of occurrence, no useful purpose is going to be served by keeping this appeal pending and adjudicating the matter, and the same is not pressed by the learned senior counsel for the appellant, in view of the report received from the Juvenile Justice Board, Khunti. 7. We do not enter into the legality of the impugned Judgment of conviction dated 29th August, 2017 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Khunti, in S.T. No. 378 of 2008, finding the appellant guilty and convicting him for the offence u/s 302 of the IPC. However, the impugned Order of sentence dated 7.9.2017, sentencing the appellant Habil Nag, to R.I. for life with a fine of the Rs. 10,000/- for the said offence, is hereby, set aside. The appellant is sentenced to the maximum period of three years as provided under the Juvenile Justice Act, and since he has already completed more than the sentence, in custody, he is directed to be released and set at liberty forthwith, if his detention is not required in any other case. 8. This appeal stands disposed of with above direction. I.A. No. 8130 of 2017, also stands disposed of. 9. Office is directed to send a copy of this order along with the Lower Court Records to the Court concerned forthwith.