Shravan Soni Vs. State

- section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & juvenile justice (care and protection of children) rules, 2007, rule 12 & 98 & juvenile justice act, 1986, section 2(h): [altamas kabir & cyriac joseph, jj] determination as to juvenile - appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 act was in force and under clause (h) of section 2 a juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years - it is with the enactment of the juvenile justice act, 2000, that in section 2(k) a juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years of a ge which was given prospective prospect - appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the juvenile justice act, 2000, came into force - juvenile act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by rule 12 of juvenile justice rule, 2007 - as such, accused has to be treated as juvenile under the said act. - in these circumstances, the prosecution has failed to prove the charges against the appellant beyond reasonable shadow of doubt, hence, the application for suspension of sentence be allowed.f.c. bansal, j.1. heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned public prosecutor and have also perused the impugned judgment.2. it is contended by learned counsel that prior to the alleged incident, the appellant was not known to 1'wl injured ramniwas, pw 2 omprakash and pw 3 chhitarmal sharma. though the appellant was named in the fir but in their statements the aforesaid witnesses, stated that before the incident, they did not know the appellant. no test-identification parade of appellant shravan soni was held during investigation. it is also contended that as per the prosecution story, appellant shravan and co-accused ashish jain came in a car in front of the office of chhitarmal sharma. while sitting in the car, shravan soni fired a shot which hit the neck of injured ramniwas. both the accused persons were put on trial but ashish jain has been acquitted of all the charges by the trial court. in these circumstances, the prosecution has failed to prove the charges against the appellant beyond reasonable shadow of doubt, hence, the application for suspension of sentence be allowed.3. learned public prosecutor has opposed the application and submits that the appellant was not on bail during trial and he was named in the fir.4. having considered the rival submissions and after going through the statements of injured ramniwas, omprakash and cheetarmal sharma as also the other evidence produced by prosecution, i am inclined to suspend the sentence awarded to the accused-appellant.5. it is, therefore, ordered that the sentence awarded to accused appellant shravan soni s/o shri ram pratap soni shall remain suspended during pendency of the appeal and he be released on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of rs. 10,000/- (rs. ten thousand only) with two sound sureties of rs. 5,000/- (rs. five thousand only) each to the satisfaction of the learned trial court with the stipulation to appear in this court on 26.8.2004 and whenever called upon to do so.