Hanuman Vs. State of Rajasthan

- 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. - appellant thus acted in a heat of passion during a sudden quarrel without any premeditation and inflicted a solitary blows hence exception 4 to section 300 ipc was clearly attracted/on the other hand learned public prosecutor argued that the trial court had rightly held that the appellant had acted in a cruel and unusual manner and was not entitled to the benefit of said exception. 4. to invoke exception 4 of section 300 ipc four requirements must be satisfied:.....sessions judge kishangarh district ajmer under section 302 ipg has preferred this appeal. the conviction of appellant is principally founded on the ocular evidence of laxman (pw.1), man singh (pw.4), gheesu (pw.5)and dev kishan (pw.8). the facts emerging from the evidence of these four witnesses coupled with the evidence of other prosecution witnesses may be stated as follows:2. on december 6, 1999 after the informant laxman (pw.1) and the appellant picked up quarrel, bhanwar lal (deceased), the maternal grand father of laxman, had gone to the market to meet ram niwas (father of appellant) who was found standing on the road in front of a shop, when ram niwas and bhanwar lal had altercations, appellant suddenly appeared and inflicted knife blow on the abdomen of bhanwar lai who was removed to the hospital where he died. as per postmortem report ex.p-13 following antemortem injuries were found on the dead body:1. stab wound 1 1/2 x 1/2 x upto parietal cavity at left hypochondral region of abdomen.2. spleen-there is tear of 1'x 1/2 x 1/2 on lateral aspect of spleen with clots & blood over it.dr. p.c. patni (pw. 15), who conducted autopsy on the dead body, deposed that the cause of death was hemorrhagic shock due to spleenic injury.3. learned counsel for the appellant canvassed that there was no previous ill-will between the parties and the appellant was not the one who had started the quarrel but the deceased himself came to the father of appellant and abused him. appellant thus acted in a heat of passion during a sudden quarrel without any premeditation and inflicted a solitary blows hence exception 4 to section 300 ipc was clearly attracted/on the other hand learned public prosecutor argued that the trial court had rightly held that the appellant had acted in a cruel and unusual manner and was not entitled to the benefit of said exception.4. to invoke exception 4 of section 300 ipc four requirements must be satisfied:(i) it was a sudden fight;(ii) there.....