Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 486 (AP)

Katta Phani Kumar v. State

2025-03-18

Y.LAKSHMANA RAO

body2025
JUDGMENT : 1. The criminal revision case has been preferred under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Cr.P.C.') challenging the judgment dated 27.06.2008 in Criminal Appeal No.215 of 2007 passed by the learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur, whereby and whereunder the conviction and sentence imposed in the judgment dated 25.06.2007 in CC No.167 of 2006 on the file of the learned I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tenali, was confirmed. 2. I have heard the arguments of learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. 3. Sri N. Harinadh, learned Counsel, representing Sri Ch. Ravindra Babu, learned Counsel for the petitioner, while reiterating the grounds of revision, argued that the evidence of PW1 to PW5 coupled with Ex.P1 to Ex.P10 and MO1 had not proved the guilt of the petitioner for the alleged offence under Section 384 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'the I.P.C.'), and it is urged to allow the revision. Alternatively, it is submitted that the petitioner, at the time of the alleged offence was a minor. The alleged occurrence was taken place in the year 2005, nearly, 20 years have passed by. The petitioner was in jail for 92 days i.e., from 07.12.2005 to 20.01.2006 (44 days) and from 27.06.2008 to 14.08.2008 (48 days) and requested to show some lenience and sentence the petitioner to the sentence which he had already undergone. 4. Per contra, Ms. Akhila Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor argued that the prosecution had proved the guilt of the petitioner beyond all reasonable doubt; there was a concurrent finding of the guilty of the petitioner; appreciation of evidence is not permissible in the revision case; there are no material irregularities pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. Therefore, urged to dismiss the revision case. 5. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. I have perused the material on record. 6. Now the point for consideration is : Whether the judgment in Crl. A No.215 of 2007 dated 27.06.2008, passed by the learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur, is correct, legal, and proper with respect to its finding, sentence, or judgment, and there are any material irregularities? And to what relief? 7. I have perused the material on record. 6. Now the point for consideration is : Whether the judgment in Crl. A No.215 of 2007 dated 27.06.2008, passed by the learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur, is correct, legal, and proper with respect to its finding, sentence, or judgment, and there are any material irregularities? And to what relief? 7. To bring home the guilt of the petitioner, the prosecution examined PW1 to PW5 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P10 and MO1. The learned Trial Court having examined the evidence of prosecution witnesses and also the exhibits marked, found the petitioner guilty for the offence under Section 384 of 'the I.P.C.'. The learned Appellate Court also on appraisal of the evidence, rightly confirmed the judgment of the learned Trial Court. There are no material irregularities in conducting the trial and finding the guilt of the petitioner either by the learned Trial Court or by the Appellate Court; there was no misleading of evidence. The judgment of the learned Appellate Court and also the learned Trial Court did not suffer from any irregularities. This Court cannot re-appreciate the evidence like a second Appellate Court, while deciding the revision case. Therefore, the conviction shall be maintained for the alleged offence under Section 384 of 'the I.P.C.'. 8. Whereas it is pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was minor at the time of the alleged offence and produced a Transfer Certificate issued by S.N. Government High School, Chebrole in favour of the petitioner/Katta Phani Kumar, in which the date of birth of the petitioner was mentioned as 15.05.1990. The petitioner dis-continued 8th class. The certificate was sent for verification through the Sub-Inspector of Police, III Town Police Station, Tenali. The Head Master, S.N. Government High School, Chebrole, certified that the Transfer Certificate was verified and found to be correct and to that effect he issued a Genuinity Certificate and also another Study Certificate stating that the petitioner dis-continued his 8th standard in the year 2004-05. As per the prosecution, the offence occurred on 05.11.2005. The Date of Birth of the petitioner was 15.05.1990. Therefore, his age would be 15 years, 5 months and 21 days as on the date of commission of offence. This important aspect was neither considered by the learned Trial Court nor by the learned Appellate Court. As per the prosecution, the offence occurred on 05.11.2005. The Date of Birth of the petitioner was 15.05.1990. Therefore, his age would be 15 years, 5 months and 21 days as on the date of commission of offence. This important aspect was neither considered by the learned Trial Court nor by the learned Appellate Court. Of course, this fact was not brought to the notice of the learned Trial Court or the Appellate Court either by the prosecution or the defence Counsel. However, it was the solemn responsibility of the learned Magistrate or the Appellate Court to verify the age of the petitioner atleast while sentencing the petitioner inasmuch as by the time of the commission of the offence, the Juvenile Justice Care and Protection of Children Act, 2000 (for short 'the Act') was very much in force. 9. At this juncture, the learned Counsel has relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Upendra Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2005) 3 SCC 592 , in which it is held in Para 5 as under : 5. The course this Court adopted in Gopinath Ghosh's case 1984 Supp SCC 228 = 1984 SCC (Cri.) 478, as also in Bhola Bhagat v. State of Bihar, (1997) 8 SCC 720 = 1998 SCC (Cri.) 125, was to sustain the conviction but, at the same time, quash the sentence awarded to the convict. In the present case, at this distant time, the question of referring the appellant to the Juvenile Board does not arise. Following the aforesaid decisions, we would sustain the conviction of the appellant for the offences for which he has been found guilty by the Court of Session, as affirmed by the High Court, at the same time, however, the sentence awarded to the appellant is quashed and the appeal is allowed to this extent. Resultantly, the appellant is directed to be released forthwith if not required in any other case. 10. The learned Counsel for the petitioner also relied on another judgment in Rambir Singh and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2009) 17 SCC 574 , wherein at Paragraph Nos.2 and 7, it is held as under : 2. It is true that the question of juvenility of appellant 4 had not been taken either before the Trial Court or before the High Court. It is true that the question of juvenility of appellant 4 had not been taken either before the Trial Court or before the High Court. However, having regard to the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, and the amendments effected thereto in 2006, by the introduction of Section 7-A, and the framing of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, having particular regard to Rule 12, it is now settled that such a question of juvenility can be raised at any time before any Court and even after conviction. 7. Having regard to the above, let the case of appellant 4 be transmitted to the Juvenile Justice Board, Aligarh, for passing appropriate orders in terms of Section 15 of the Act, read with Rule 98 of the aforesaid Rules, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Registry is directed to communicate this order to the Court concerned. 11. It is further relied on Ranjeet Goswami v. State of Jharkhand, 2013 Crl. LJ 4895, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held at Paragraph No.9 as under : We are of the view that no cogent reasons have been stated by the High Court to discard the School Leaving Certificate which was issued on 10.04.2004 by the then Principal of the School. The certificate reveals the date of birth of the accused as 10.05.1991. The School Leaving Certificate was proved by examining the Head Mistress of the School. She has recognized the signatures of the Principal, who issued the School Leaving Certificate. The evidence adduced by the Head Mistress was not challenged. Consequently, there is no reason to discard that document. Further, we notice that there was some confusion as to whether the appellant, whose name is Ranjeet Goswami is the same person Rajiv Ranjan Goswami. The Investigating Officer's Report indicates that they are different persons. Consequently, we have to take it that the School Leaving Certificate produced was in respect of the appellant which has been proved. 12. As per Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice Care and Protection of Children Rules, 2007 (for short 'the Rules'), the issue of Juvenility can be raised at any time before any Court and even after conviction. Consequently, we have to take it that the School Leaving Certificate produced was in respect of the appellant which has been proved. 12. As per Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice Care and Protection of Children Rules, 2007 (for short 'the Rules'), the issue of Juvenility can be raised at any time before any Court and even after conviction. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Hari Ram v. State of Rajasthan, (2009) 13 SCC 211 , explained and interpreted the above Rule 12. The Apex Court in Ranjeet Goswami's case (supra), held that the School Leaving Certificate can be taken into consideration to determine the age of the accused therein, when there are no other documents to be relied on. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Ashwani Kumar Saxena v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 2013 SC 553 , laid down a ratio that there would not be any question of subjecting the accused therein to a medical examination by Medical Board, when there is School Leaving Certificate showing the age of the accused. In this case, the Study Certificate/Transfer Certificate/School Leaving Certificate was found to be genuine as per the Genuinity Certificate issued by the Head Master of S.N. Government High School, Chebrole. 13. Nearly 20 years have passed by from the date of commission of the offence and to the date of hearing of this revision case. At this distant time, the question of referring the petitioner to the Juvenile Justice Board would not be appropriate following the ratios laid down by the Apex Court in Gopinath Ghosh's case (supra) and Bhola Bhagat's case (supra). However, the concurrent conviction of the petitioner for the offence under Section 384 of 'the I.P.C.' shall be sustained at the same time, but the sentence imposed on the petitioner is liable to be quashed following the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Upendra Kumar's case (supra). 14. In the result, the criminal revision case is disposed of while maintaining the conviction for the offence under Section 384 of 'the I.P.C.', while quashing the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the petitioner by the learned Trial Court and confirmed by the learned Appellate Court. There shall be no order as to costs. 15. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.