State of Rajasthan Vs. Ramsingh - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
penal code - section 394 and criminal procedure code--appeal against acquittal--complaint filed late by 6 days--independent witnesses in support of injury not examined though available--held, no interference with order of acquittal.;appeal 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. c. honnia, c.j.1. the accused who was charged under section 394 ipc was acquitted by the trial court on the grounds that there was delay in filing the complaint by six days and that the injury said in have been sustained by the complainants was not proved and independent witnesses, though available, were not examined. the case against the accused was that he committed theft of a camel and the evidence shows that the camel came to the possession of the complainant.2. in these circumstances i find no reason to interfere with the order of acquittal. hence the appeal is dismissed.