LawforAll

advocatemmmohan

My photo
since 1985 practicing as advocate in both civil & criminal laws

WELCOME TO LEGAL WORLD

WELCOME TO MY LEGAL WORLD - SHARE THE KNOWLEDGE

Sunday, August 19, 2012

Since on the date of offence, Kalu @ Amit was about 17 years, 5 months and 23 days of age, he could have been directed to be kept in protective custody for 3 years under proviso to Section 16 as the offence is serious and he was above 16 years of age when the offence was committed. But he certainly could not have been sent to jail. Since, the plea of juvenility was not raised before the High Court, the High Court confirmed the sentence which it could not have done. None of the above courses can be adopted by us, at this stage, because Kalu @ Amit has already undergone more than 9 years of imprisonment. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, therefore, we quash the order of the High Court to the extent it sentences accused Kalu @ Amit to suffer life imprisonment for offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC. After receipt of report from Additional Sessions Judge, Rewari, vide order dated 14/12/2009, we had ordered that the Kalu @ Amit be released on bail.


                                                              NON-REPORTABLE


                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

                       CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                      CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1467 OF 2007


KALU @ AMIT                             …          APPELLANT

                                   Versus

STATE OF HARAYNA                    …        RESPONDENT

                                    WITH

                       CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 868 OF 2008


JOGINDER & ANR.                   …          APPELLANTS

                                   Versus

STATE OF HARYANA             …           RESPONDENT

                                  JUDGMENT

(SMT.) RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI, J.


1.    These two appeals, by special leave, can be disposed of  by  a  common
judgment as they challenge the judgment and order dated 11/7/2006 passed  by
the High Court of Punjab & Haryana whereby  the  High  Court  dismissed  the
criminal appeal filed by the appellant - Kalu @ Amit (original   accused  3)
and the criminal  appeal  filed  by  appellants  Joginder  and  Varun  Kumar
(original accused 1 and  2  respectively)  challenging  judgment  and  order
dated  7/9/2000  delivered  by  the  Additional   Sessions   Judge,   Rewari
convicting them for offence under Section 302 read with Section  34  of  the
Indian Penal Code (for  short,  ‘the  IPC’)  and  sentencing  them  to  life
imprisonment.  We shall refer to the accused  wherever  necessary  by  their
names, for the sake of convenience.


2.    The case of the prosecution is that  on  7/4/1999  PW-5   Ram  Chander
Yadav had gone to Ahir College, Rewari for attestation of his  certificates.
  He met PW-4 Karambir  Yadav  there.   At  about  8.30  a.m.,  he  went  to
Geography  Department  of  the  college.   Pushpinder  (the  deceased)   was
standing there.  The deceased asked PW-5 Ram Chander Yadav as to how he  was
there.  PW-5 Ram Chander Yadav informed him that he was there as he  had  to
get copies of his  certificates  attested.   By  that  time,  suddenly,  the
accused equipped with deadly weapons came running towards the deceased,  who
was standing in the company of PW-5 Ram  Chander  Yadav  and  PW-4  Karambir
Yadav.   Kalu @ Amit dealt a sword  blow  on  the  ‘takna’  (ankle)  of  the
deceased.  The deceased ran towards the office of the Principal to save  his
life.  PW-5 Ram Chander Yadav ran behind him.  Varun  Kumar,  who  was  also
chasing the deceased, dealt a blow with a sword on the leg of the  deceased.
 The deceased ran ahead.  PW-5 Ram Chander Yadav  caught  hold  of  Joginder
and Varun Kumar.  Kalu @ Amit showed him the sword.  PW-5 Ram Chander  Yadav
then set Joginder and Varun Kumar free.  The deceased fell on the ground  in
front of the office of the Principal.  Joginder dealt a sword  blow  on  his
forehead.   Thereafter,  all  the  accused  ran  away  from  the  place   of
occurrence by jumping over the boundary  wall  of  the  college.   PW-5  Ram
Chander Yadav lifted the deceased and placed him  at  some  distance.   PW-4
Karambir Yadav helped him in doing so.  By that time college  boys  gathered
there.  They arranged for a car by which PW-4 Karambir Yadav  and  PW-5  Ram
Chander Yadav took the deceased in injured condition to the Civil  Hospital,
Rewari, where he was declared dead.


3.    PW-1 Dr. Sunita Garg, who was at the relevant time posted  as  Medical
Officer at the Civil Hospital, Rewari, sent  ‘ruqa’  to  the  Station  House
Officer (SHO), Police Station, Rewari  informing  him  that  Pushpinder  was
brought dead to the hospital.  On receipt  of  ‘ruqa’  PW-8  Raja  Ram,  SHO
along with other police personnel  rushed  to  the  Civil  Hospital,  Rewari
where he met PW-4 Karambir Yadav.  PW-8  Raja  Ram  recorded  PW-4  Karambir
Yadav’s statement which was treated as FIR (PD/2).   On  the  basis  of  the
said FIR, investigation was set into motion.

4.    PW-1 Dr. Sunita Garg conducted the post mortem  on  the  deceased  and
opined that death was due to hemorrhage and  shock,  as  a  result  of  head
injury and injury to femoral vessels.



5.    Pursuant to the statements made by the  accused  on  16/4/1999,  PW-10
Inspector Mahabir Singh recovered ‘khukhri’ from the upper shelf of the  bed
room of the house of Joginder in Village  Budhpur,  ‘sword’  from  the  turi
room of Kalu @ Amit’s house in Village Budhpur and  ‘knife’  from  the  turi
room of Varun Kumar’s house in Village Budhpur.


6.    On completion of investigation,  the  accused  were  charged  for  the
offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the  IPC.   The
prosecution, in support of its case, examined as many as 10 witnesses.   The
accused denied the prosecution case and claimed to be tried.

7.    Upon perusal  of  the  evidence,  the  Sessions  Court  convicted  and
sentenced the accused as aforesaid. As stated above,  the  criminal  appeals
filed by the accused were dismissed  by  the  High  Court  by  the  impugned
order, hence, these appeals.

8.    We have heard learned counsel for  the  accused  as  well  as  learned
counsel for the State.  Learned counsel for the accused submitted  that  the
conviction is based solely on the evidence of PW-5 Ram  Chander  Yadav,  who
claims that he  had  witnessed  the  incident.   However,  his  evidence  is
doubtful.  He is a chance witness.  Besides, he is a disabled  person.   His
claim that he held two accused and let them free when  Kalu  @  Amit  showed
him sword, cannot be accepted because he has only one hand.  It was  pointed
out that PW-5 Ram Chander Yadav’s name is not mentioned in the  Daily  Diary
Register (“DDR”).  His claim that he had taken the deceased to  hospital  is
also doubtful because his name does not appear in the hospital  record.   He
is not a  witness  to  the  inquest  proceedings.   If  he  had  lifted  the
deceased, his clothes would have been stained with blood  but  that  is  not
so.  The Investigating Officer has stated that  his  clothes  had  no  blood
stains.  He has stated that bandage was put on the deceased by  the  doctor,
but the MLR indicates that there was no bandage on  the  deceased.   Besides
the story that the accused jumped over the wall and ran away  is  inherently
improbable.  Counsel submitted that PW-5 Ram Chander Yadav is, therefore,  a
highly unreliable witness, whose evidence  ought  to  have  been  discarded.
Counsel further submitted that the discovery evidence is also suspect.   The
accused allegedly made discovery statements. However, they  retracted  those
statements and made fresh statements pursuant  to  which  the  weapons  have
allegedly been recovered.  Counsel submitted that the  discovery  statements
have been created by the police  to  suit  the  prosecution  case.   Counsel
pointed out that PW-4 Karambir Yadav, who is stated to have lodged the  FIR,
has turned hostile.  Therefore, there was no credible  evidence  before  the
court  to  convict  the  accused.   In  the  circumstances,  the  order   of
conviction and sentence deserves to be set aside.  Learned counsel  for  the
State, on the other hand, supported the impugned judgment.

9.    We find no infirmity in the judgment  of  the  High  Court  which  has
rightly affirmed the trial court’s view. It is true that  the  accused  have
managed to win over the complainant PW-4 Karambir Yadav,  but  the  evidence
of PW-5 Ram Chander Yadav bears out  the  prosecution  case.    It  is  well
settled that conviction can be based on the evidence of a sole  eye  witness
if  his  evidence  inspires  confidence.   This  witness  has   meticulously
narrated the incident and supported the prosecution case.  We  find  him  to
be a reliable witness.  He is a student; there is no challenge to this.   He
wanted to get his certificates attested and, therefore, he had gone to  Ahir
College, where the incident took place on the morning  of  7/4/1999.   There
is nothing unusual or surprising about his visit to  Ahir  College.   It  is
wrong to describe him as a chance witness.  Assuming PW-5 Ram Chander  Yadav
is a friend of the deceased, his  testimony  cannot  be  discarded  on  that
ground, particularly when his evidence appears to be natural  and  credible.
 He is unlikely to implicate innocent persons in the murder of  his  friend.
Because his name is not found in the DDR or in the hospital  record  and  he
was not a witness to the inquest proceedings, it cannot  be  concluded  that
he was not there at the place of incident or he did not  take  the  deceased
to the hospital.   It is pertinent to note that  his  name  appears  in  the
FIR.  Though the complainant has turned  hostile,  PW-8  SHO  Raja  Ram  has
spoken about recording of the FIR.   Nothing has been brought on  record  to
establish that PW-8 SHO Raja Ram harboured any grudge  against  the  accused
and he wanted to falsely implicate  them.   Finding  of  name  of  PW-5  Ram
Chander Yadav in the FIR is of great significance.




10.   It is the case of the defence that PW-5 Ram  Chander  Yadav  has  only
one hand, therefore, his version that he held the two accused  and  released
them after Kalu @ Amit showed him sword is false.  PW-5 Ram Chander  Yadav’s
left arm is upto elbow joint.  Courage  and  strength  are  qualities  which
differ from person to person and one cannot discount  the  version  of  PW-5
Ram Chander Yadav on the basis of surmises.  It appears  to  us  that  while
the complainant, because of lack of courage resiled from his statement,  PW-
5 Ram Chander Yadav has courageously stuck to it. This speaks  volumes.   It
is argued that PW-5 Ram Chander Yadav  has  stated  that  his  clothes  were
stained with blood, but PW-8 SHO Raja Ram has stated to  the  contrary.   We
do not attach much importance to this.  The Investigating Officer  ought  to
have seized PW-5 Ram Chander Yadav’s clothes.  Because he has failed  to  do
so, obviously to cover up his inefficiency, he has come out with  the  story
that there were no blood stains on the clothes of PW-5  Ram  Chander  Yadav.
This court has repeatedly observed that the court must  not  get  influenced
by the remissness or inefficiency of the  Investigating  Agency  and  acquit
the  accused  if  the  core  of  the  prosecution  case  is   undented   and
established.   That will be putting a premium on inefficiency  at  the  cost
of cause of justice.  We find that in the instant  case,  the  core  of  the
prosecution case or the substratum of  the  prosecution  case  has  remained
intact.

11.   It was also urged that PW-5  Ram  Chander  Yadav  has  stated  that  a
bandage was put on the deceased but the  evidence  does  not  bear  out  the
statement.  This is really a minor discrepancy, which does  not  affect  the
prosecution case.  So far  as  discoveries  made  at  the  instance  of  the
accused are concerned, it was argued that they  are  shrouded  in  suspicion
because  the  earlier  statements  were  retracted  by  the  accused.   This
submission has no merit.  The trial court as well  as  the  High  Court  has
rightly noted that the  accused  had  tried  to  mislead  the  Investigating
Agency by making false statements.    No  fault  could  be  found  with  the
discoveries.  There is nothing unusual in the accused jumping over the  wall
and running away.  They are young.  They can easily cross over the  wall  by
jumping.

12.   We must note a very distressing feature  of  this  case.   During  the
trial, an attempt was made by the defence to prejudice the trial  by  filing
an application on 5/8/1999 through Ram Singh  father  of  PW-5  Ram  Chander
Yadav stating that PW-5 Ram Chander Yadav had not  witnessed  the  incident;
that his name was cited because he is a friend of the deceased and that  the
complainant had kidnapped him.  The trial court has noted  that  immediately
after the application was made, after the  lunch  break,  PW-5  Ram  Chander
Yadav was asked whether he had deposed under the pressure of the police  and
the complainant and whether he was in the custody  of  the  complainant  for
the last three days.  PW-5 Ram Chander Yadav denied this story.   The  trial
court and the High Court have rightly observed  that  this  conduct  of  the
accused completely exposed them.  We  concur  with  this  observation.   The
accused made an unholy attempt to subvert the  court  proceedings.   In  the
circumstances, we are of the view that the involvement  of  the  accused  in
the offence of murder is rightly held to be proved.

13.   While we are inclined  to  confirm  the  conviction  and  sentence  of
accused Joginder and Varun, the appeal of   accused  Kalu  @  Amit  requires
different treatment.   A  contention  was  raised  before  this  Court  that
accused-Kalu @ Amit was a juvenile  at the time of the offence and  he  must
be given the benefit of the provisions of the  Juvenile  Justice  (Care  and
Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (for short, ‘the Juvenile Act’).  In  view
of this, a direction was given to the District and  Sessions  Judge,  Rewari
or some other Judicial Officer nominated by him to submit  a  report  as  to
the age of the accused Kalu @ Amit.  Accordingly, an inquiry  was  conducted
by Mr. R.S. Chaudhary, Additional Sessions Judge, Rewari. The report of  Mr.
Chaudhary dated 12/11/2011 is forwarded to this Court by  the  District  and
Sessions Judge, Rewari. The report states that on the basis of the  oral  as
well as documentary evidence, it is established that the date  of  birth  of
accused Kalu @ Amit is 14/10/1981 and at the time  of  the  registration  of
FIR dated 7/4/1999 he was about 17 years, 5 months and 23  days’old.   Thus,
accused Kalu @ Amit was a juvenile when the offence was committed.  We  have
no reason to disbelieve the report  submitted  by  the  Additional  Sessions
Judge, Rewari, which is based on  oral  as  well  as  documentary  evidence.
Once it is held that accused Kalu @ Amit was a juvenile,  when  the  offence
was committed, the law must take  its  course  and  he  must  be  given  the
benefit of the Juvenile Act.

14.   Under Section 14 of the Juvenile Act, it is only the Juvenile  Justice
Board (for short, “the Board”) which can conduct an inquiry as to whether  a
juvenile has committed the offence or not.  Even if the Board comes  to  the
conclusion that a juvenile has committed an offence, he cannot be  sentenced
and sent to a prison. Section of 15 of the Juvenile Act  states  what  order
can be passed regarding a juvenile  who  has  committed  an  offence.  Under
Section 15(g), the Board may direct the juvenile to be  sent  to  a  special
home for a period of three years. Under the  proviso,  the  Board  may,  for
reasons to be recorded, reduce the period of  stay  to  such  period  as  it
thinks fit.  Section 16 forbids the court from  sentencing  a  juvenile  and
committing him to  prison.  Proviso  to  Section  16  states  that  where  a
juvenile who has attained the age of 16 years has committed an  offence  and
the Board is satisfied that the offence committed is so  serious  in  nature
or that his conduct and behaviour have been such 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 Juvenile Act is suitable or sufficient, the  Board  may  order   such  a
juvenile  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.
 Under sub-Section (2) of Section 16 on a report  received  from  the  Board
under sub-Section (1), the State Government may  order  that  such  juvenile
may be kept under protective custody at such place and  on  such  conditions
as it thinks fit. However, the period of detention shall not exceed  in  any
case the maximum period provided under Section  15  i.e.  the  period  of  3
years.

15.   Section 17 says that no proceeding can  be  instituted  and  no  order
shall be passed against a  juvenile  under  Chapter  VIII  of  the  Criminal
Procedure Code.  Section 18 forbids a  joint  trial  of  a  juvenile  and  a
person who is not a juvenile.  Section 19 makes it  clear  that  a  juvenile
who has committed an offence and has been dealt with  under  the  provisions
of the Juvenile Act shall not suffer disqualification, if any,  attached  to
a conviction of an offence.  Sub-Section (2)  of  Section  19  goes  a  step
further.  It states that in case of conviction,  the  Board  shall  make  an
order directing that the records of such conviction shall be  removed  after
the expiry of the period of appeal or  a  reasonable  period  as  prescribed
under the rules, as the case may be.

16.   Section 20 makes a special provision in respect of pending cases.   It
states that notwithstanding anything contained  in  the  Juvenile  Act,  all
proceedings in respect of a juvenile pending in any court  in  any  area  on
the date on which Juvenile Act comes  into  force  in  that  area  shall  be
continued in that court as if the Juvenile Act had not been  passed  and  if
the court finds that the juvenile has committed an offence, it shall  record
such finding and instead of passing any sentence in respect of the  juvenile
forward the juvenile to the Board which shall  pass  orders  in  respect  of
that juvenile in accordance with the provisions of the Juvenile  Act  as  if
it had been satisfied on inquiry under the Juvenile Act  that  the  juvenile
has committed the offence.  The Explanation to Section  20  makes  it  clear
that in all pending cases, which would include  not  only  trials  but  even
subsequent proceedings by way of revision or appeal,  the  determination  of
juvenility of a juvenile would be in terms of clause (l) of Section 2,  even
if the juvenile ceased to be a juvenile on  or  before  1/4/2001,  when  the
Juvenile Act came into force, and the provisions of the Juvenile  Act  would
apply as if the said provision had been in force for all  purposes  and  for
all material times when the  alleged  offence  was  committed.   As  regards
Explanation to Section 20 of the Juvenile Act, it would  be  appropriate  to
quote observations of this Court in Hari Ram v.  State of Rajasthan  &  Anr.
(2009) 13 SCC 211. The observations read thus:

      39.   The Explanation which was added in 2006,  makes  it  very  clear
      that in all pending cases, which would include  not  only  trials  but
      even  subsequent  proceedings  by  way  of  revision  or  appeal,  the
      determination of juvenility of a juvenile would be in terms of  clause
      (l) of Section 2, even if the juvenile ceased to be a juvenile  on  or
      before 1/4/2001, when the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000 came into  force,
      and the provisions of the Act would apply as if the said provision had
      been in force for all purposes and for all  material  times  when  the
      alleged offence was committed.  In fact, Section 20 enables the  court
      to consider and determine  the  juvenility  of  a  person  even  after
      conviction by the regular court and also  empowers  the  court,  while
      maintaining the conviction, to set  aside  the  sentence  imposed  and
      forward the case to the Juvenile Justice Board concerned  for  passing
      sentence in accordance with the provisions  of  the  Juvenile  Justice
      Act, 2000.”


17.   It is clear, therefore, that the Juvenile Act is intended  to  protect
the juvenile from the rigours of a trial by a criminal court.  It  prohibits
sentencing of a juvenile and committing him  to  prison.   As  its  preamble
suggests it seeks to adopt a child-friendly  approach  in  the  adjudication
and disposition of matters in the best interest of children  and  for  their
ultimate rehabilitation.

18.   The instant offence took place on 7/4/1999.  As we have already  noted
Kalu @ Amit was a juvenile on that date.  He  was  convicted  by  the  trial
court on 7/9/2000.  The Juvenile Act  came  into  force  on  1/4/2001.   The
appeal of Kalu @ Amit was decided by the High Court on 11/7/2006.   Had  the
defence of juvenility been raised before the High Court and  the  fact  that
Kalu @ Amit was a juvenile at the time of commission of offence had come  to
light the High Court would have had to record its finding that Kalu  @  Amit
was guilty, confirm his conviction, set aside the sentence and  forward  the
case to the Board and the Board would  have  passed  any  appropriate  order
permissible under Section 15 of the Juvenile Act (See Hari Ram).   As  noted
above, the Board could have sent Kalu  @  Amit  to  a  Special  Home  for  a
maximum period of three years and under Section 19, it would  have  made  an
order directing that the relevant record of conviction  be  removed.   Since
on the date of offence, Kalu @ Amit was about 17  years,  5  months  and  23
days of age, he could have been directed to be kept  in  protective  custody
for 3 years under proviso to Section 16 as the offence  is  serious  and  he
was above 16 years of age when the offence was committed.  But he  certainly
could not have been sent to jail.  Since, the plea  of  juvenility  was  not
raised before the High Court, the High Court confirmed  the  sentence  which
it could not have done.  None of the above courses can be adopted by us,  at
this stage, because Kalu @ Amit has already undergone more than 9  years  of
imprisonment.  In  the  peculiar  facts  and  circumstances  of  the   case,
therefore, we quash the order of the High Court to the extent  it  sentences
accused Kalu @ Amit to suffer life imprisonment for  offence  under  Section
302 read with  Section  34  of  the  IPC.   After  receipt  of  report  from
Additional Sessions Judge, Rewari,  vide  order  dated  14/12/2009,  we  had
ordered that the Kalu @ Amit be released on bail.  If he has availed of  the
bail order, his bail bond shall stand discharged.  If he has not availed  of
the  bail  order,  the  prison  authorities  are  directed  to  release  him
forthwith, unless he is required in some other case.  Accused  Kalu  @  Amit
shall not incur any disqualification because of this order. Criminal  Appeal
No.1467 of 2007 filed by the accused Kalu @ Amit is  allowed  to  the  above
extent.

19.   We dismiss Criminal Appeal No.868 of 2008 filed  by  accused  Joginder
and Varun Kumar.


                                                       ……………………………………………..J.
                                (AFTAB ALAM)

                                                       ……………………………………………..J.
                                                     (RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI)
NEW DELHI,
AUGUST 17, 2012.



-----------------------
15