Harvansh Vs. State of Rajasthan

penal code - section 1353--sentence--accused under interaction entering class and physically assaulting teacher, putting him from chair by catching his ear and accused himself sitting in chair--held, reduction of sentence will be misplaced leniency),.;the accused entered the room and then in front of the school boys in a school after coming in stage of intoxication he misbehaved and physically assaulted the teacher by catching his ear & pulling him up from the chair, and himself sat there, in chair. this is a very serious type of offence and therefore, i feel that it would misplaced leniency if he is released on the sentence already undergone.;revision dismissed - 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. - the petitioner also alleged to have bad thrown ink on the clothes of the complainant and that the accused was drunk at that time......the notice of enhancement and now the case has come up for consideration of the sentence imposed by the lower court. there is no doubt that the allegation of the prosecution so far as held to be proved by both the lower court relate to the fact that haransh came in the school where the petitioner was teaching the boys. the petitioner was the headmaster and harvansh entered the class where the complainant was teaching and thereafter he started the misdeed mentioned above. he first caught hold of the ear of the head master and physically ousted him from his chair and then he himself sat on the chair. he threw the papers which were lying on the table and also the ink on the teacher of the school boys. he used force in this manner and the children were so much scared that they ran away after observing this serious offence.5. the learned additional sessions judge has mentioned that such a person deserves no sympathy because he has openly and publicly committed the offence against a teacher who is respected by the students and infront of the students.6. the trial court also while deciding the case observed that such a person deserves no sympathy.7. the learned counsel submitted that the accused has remained in jail for about a month and therefore the sentence must be reduced to already undergone.8. i have carefully examined the record of the case and find that findings of the both the lower courts on the crucial question deserves to be 724/725/- confirmed. the defence of the accused is that he was demanding some amount as price of milk and he cause a for that purpose he did not mention in the statement that he came in the school and demanded the money but learned counsel submitted at his own that probably this was the reason why he entered the room and this incident happened.9. i find that no evidence has been lead to this extent to prove this defence nor it is proved from the cross examination of the prosecution witnesses.10. the accused entered the room and.....