Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 509 (JHR)

Saroj Kumar Mahto v. State of Jharkhand

2020-05-20

ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY, H.C.MISHRA

body2020
JUDGMENT : Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the State. 2. The sole appellant has been convicted for the offence under Sections 366-A and 376 of the Indian Penal Code as also under Section 3(1)(w)(i) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 3. Upon hearing on the point of sentence, the appellant has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years with fine of Rs.10,000/-for the offence under Section 366-A of the Indian Penal Code, R.I. for ten years and with fine of Rs.10,000/-for the offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and R.I. for six months for the offence under Section 3(1)(w)(i) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and all the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 4. During the pendency of this appeal, I.A. No.6612 of 2019 was filed claiming that the appellant was a juvenile on the date of occurrence and the said claim was laid on the basis of the matriculation certificate of the appellant issued on 7th May 2006, showing his date of birth to be 9.11.1991. This Court, vide order dated 14.10.2019, directed the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seraikella-Kharsawan to enter into an enquiry as regards the claim of the juvenility of the appellant in accordance with Rule 12 of the J.J. Rules, 2007. The enquiry was accordingly conducted and the inquiry report has since been received in this Court, which has been kept on record. The enquiry report shows that on the date of occurrence, i.e. on 18.8.2009, the appellant was aged 17 years 9 months and 9 days. Thus, he was a juvenile on the date of occurrence. While entering into the enquiry, the Court below has taken into consideration the matriculation certificate of the appellant, which was issued prior to the date of occurrence. In that view of the matter, the appellant is held to be a juvenile on the date of occurrence, i.e. on 18.8.2009. 6. In view of the enquiry report, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the sentences passes against the appellant cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. Learned counsel submits that he has now nothing to argue on merits against conviction. 7. Learned counsel for the State also concedes, in view of the enquiry report submitted by the Court below. 8. Learned counsel submits that he has now nothing to argue on merits against conviction. 7. Learned counsel for the State also concedes, in view of the enquiry report submitted by the Court below. 8. In view of the fact that the appellant has since been held to be juvenile, the sentence passed against the appellant now cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. Accordingly, the impugned order of sentence dated 15th April 2019, passed in SC-ST Case No.2 of 2010, arising out of G.R. Case No.796 of 2009, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I cum Special Judge SC/ST Act, Saraikela-Kharsawan, is hereby, set-aside. 9. We make it clear that the judgment of conviction, passed by the Trial Court below, shall stand in the eyes of law, in view of the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant. 10. The matter is remanded back to the Juvenile Justice Board, Saraikella-Kharsawan to pass appropriate order on the point of sentence against the appellant in accordance with law. 11. Let the record be sent back to the court concerned forthwith, to be sent to the J.J. Board, for passing the appropriate sentence. 12. This appeal, accordingly, stands disposed of with the direction as above. The pending I.A. also stands disposed of.