Gobind Singh and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan

Decided On : Jan-30-1997

Court : Rajasthan

Notice (8): Undefined index: topics [APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 36]
Code Context


$shops2 = $shops['topics'];
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/meta.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Gobind Singh and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan Semantic Analysis',
	'shops' => array(
		'LAW' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Section 34',
			(int) 1 => 'the Children Act',
			(int) 2 => 'the Children Act',
			(int) 3 => 'Section 2',
			(int) 4 => 'Section 24',
			(int) 5 => 'Section 21',
			(int) 6 => 'Section 20 of the Act',
			(int) 7 => 'Section 39',
			(int) 8 => 'Section 39',
			(int) 9 => 'Section 21',
			(int) 10 => 'Section 3 of the Act',
			(int) 11 => 'Section 39',
			(int) 12 => 'the Children Act',
			(int) 13 => 'Section 26 of the Raj',
			(int) 14 => 'Section 26',
			(int) 15 => 'Section 26',
			(int) 16 => 'Section 26',
			(int) 17 => 'the Children Act'
		),
		'PERSON' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'G.L. Gupta',
			(int) 1 => 'Hanuman',
			(int) 2 => 'Raisinghnagar',
			(int) 3 => 'Baldeo Singh',
			(int) 4 => 'Baldeo Singh',
			(int) 5 => 'Jaswant Singh',
			(int) 6 => 'Billoo',
			(int) 7 => 'Billoo',
			(int) 8 => 'Billoo',
			(int) 9 => 'Baldeo Singh',
			(int) 10 => 'Billoo',
			(int) 11 => 'Rajkumar Batra',
			(int) 12 => 'P.W.',
			(int) 13 => 'Prem Singh',
			(int) 14 => 'Gangaram',
			(int) 15 => 'Devendra Singh',
			(int) 16 => 'Billoo',
			(int) 17 => 'Hanuman',
			(int) 18 => 'Billoo',
			(int) 19 => 'Gobind Singh',
			(int) 20 => 'Hanuman',
			(int) 21 => 'Hanuman',
			(int) 22 => 'sentence.4',
			(int) 23 => 'Purohit',
			(int) 24 => 'Singh',
			(int) 25 => 'Ganganagar',
			(int) 26 => 'Billoo',
			(int) 27 => 'Amar Singh',
			(int) 28 => 'Hanuman',
			(int) 29 => 'Billoo',
			(int) 30 => 'Debu',
			(int) 31 => 'Bachan Singh',
			(int) 32 => 'Billoo',
			(int) 33 => 'Banta Singh',
			(int) 34 => 'Baldeo Singh',
			(int) 35 => 'Bachan Singh',
			(int) 36 => 'Billoo',
			(int) 37 => 'Ganga Ram',
			(int) 38 => 'Ganga Ram',
			(int) 39 => 'Jaswant Singh',
			(int) 40 => 'Billoo',
			(int) 41 => 'Billoo',
			(int) 42 => 'Nazir /Ahmed',
			(int) 43 => 'Memo Ex',
			(int) 44 => 'The Recovery Memo is Ex',
			(int) 45 => 'Nazir Ahmed PW',
			(int) 46 => 'I.O.',
			(int) 47 => 'Singh',
			(int) 48 => 'Ganga Ram',
			(int) 49 => 'Baldeo Singh',
			(int) 50 => 'Billoo',
			(int) 51 => 'Athat Billoo',
			(int) 52 => 'Baldeo Singh',
			(int) 53 => 'Gobind Singh',
			(int) 54 => 'Baldeo Singh',
			(int) 55 => 'Baldeo Singh',
			(int) 56 => 'Baldeo Singh',
			(int) 57 => 'Bachan Singh',
			(int) 58 => 'Hanuman',
			(int) 59 => 'Billoo',
			(int) 60 => 'Baldeo Singh.16',
			(int) 61 => 'Ganga Ram',
			(int) 62 => 'Billoo',
			(int) 63 => 'Baldeo Singh',
			(int) 64 => 'Billoo',
			(int) 65 => 'Sant Kaur',
			(int) 66 => 'Billoo',
			(int) 67 => 'Baldeo Singh',
			(int) 68 => 'Billoo',
			(int) 69 => 'Sant Kaur',
			(int) 70 => 'Hanuman',
			(int) 71 => 'Hanuman',
			(int) 72 => 'Baldeo Singh',
			(int) 73 => 'Hanuman',
			(int) 74 => 'Baldeo Singh',
			(int) 75 => 'Inderpal',
			(int) 76 => 'Atner Singh',
			(int) 77 => 'Baldeo Singh',
			(int) 78 => 'Bachan Singh',
			(int) 79 => 'Hanuman',
			(int) 80 => 'Hanuman',
			(int) 81 => 'P.C. Gobind Singh',
			(int) 82 => 'Bikaner',
			(int) 83 => 'Bikaner',
			(int) 84 => 'Ganganagar',
			(int) 85 => 'Gobind Singh',
			(int) 86 => 'Gobind Singh',
			(int) 87 => 'Hanuman'
		),
		'NORP' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'J.1',
			(int) 1 => 'Sessions'
		),
		'PRODUCT' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Gobind Singh',
			(int) 1 => 'P.W. 1 Baldeo Singh',
			(int) 2 => 'P.W. 8 *',
			(int) 3 => 'Rakesh',
			(int) 4 => 'Cri LJ 148'
		),
		'ORG' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Sections of the Indian Penal Code',
			(int) 1 => 'IPC',
			(int) 2 => 'IPC',
			(int) 3 => 'R.I. 324',
			(int) 4 => 'IPC',
			(int) 5 => 'R.I. 323/34',
			(int) 6 => 'IPC',
			(int) 7 => 'R.I. Hanuman',
			(int) 8 => 'IPC',
			(int) 9 => 'IPC',
			(int) 10 => 'R.I. 324',
			(int) 11 => 'IPC',
			(int) 12 => 'R.I. 323',
			(int) 13 => 'IPC',
			(int) 14 => 'FIR',
			(int) 15 => 'P.W. 2',
			(int) 16 => 'P.W. 4',
			(int) 17 => 'P.W. 6',
			(int) 18 => 'P.W. 9 Amolakram',
			(int) 19 => 'P.W.',
			(int) 20 => 'P.W. 12 Chimanlal',
			(int) 21 => 'P.W.',
			(int) 22 => 'P.W.',
			(int) 23 => 'P.W.',
			(int) 24 => 'P.W.',
			(int) 25 => 'FIR',
			(int) 26 => 'IPC',
			(int) 27 => 'Hanuman',
			(int) 28 => 'Public Prosecutor',
			(int) 29 => 'Court',
			(int) 30 => 'FIR',
			(int) 31 => 'FIR',
			(int) 32 => 'FIR',
			(int) 33 => 'changed.8',
			(int) 34 => 'Gobind',
			(int) 35 => 'the FIR Ex',
			(int) 36 => 'Gobind',
			(int) 37 => 'cms',
			(int) 38 => 'P/l 7',
			(int) 39 => 'Gobind',
			(int) 40 => 'IPC',
			(int) 41 => 'Gobind',
			(int) 42 => 'Hanuman',
			(int) 43 => 'Hanuman',
			(int) 44 => 'Court',
			(int) 45 => 'FIR',
			(int) 46 => 'FIR',
			(int) 47 => 'a Children Court',
			(int) 48 => 'Churu',
			(int) 49 => 'the Children Court',
			(int) 50 => 'Court',
			(int) 51 => 'Court',
			(int) 52 => 'Court',
			(int) 53 => 'the Children's Court',
			(int) 54 => 'Court',
			(int) 55 => 'Court',
			(int) 56 => 'the Children Court',
			(int) 57 => 'the Children Act.26',
			(int) 58 => 'Court',
			(int) 59 => 'the Hon'ble Apex Court',
			(int) 60 => 'U.P. AIR 1994',
			(int) 61 => 'IPC',
			(int) 62 => 'the Hon'ble Apex Court',
			(int) 63 => 'Court',
			(int) 64 => 'IPC'
		),
		'CARDINAL' => array(
			(int) 0 => '9-12-81',
			(int) 1 => '302',
			(int) 2 => '50 449',
			(int) 3 => '302',
			(int) 4 => '34',
			(int) 5 => '50 449',
			(int) 6 => 'about 10-30 p.m.',
			(int) 7 => '27-3-80',
			(int) 8 => '12',
			(int) 9 => 'Some 8',
			(int) 10 => '8',
			(int) 11 => '10',
			(int) 12 => '13',
			(int) 13 => '14',
			(int) 14 => '16',
			(int) 15 => '18',
			(int) 16 => '19',
			(int) 17 => '6',
			(int) 18 => '6',
			(int) 19 => '8',
			(int) 20 => '6',
			(int) 21 => '3',
			(int) 22 => '2',
			(int) 23 => '10',
			(int) 24 => '15',
			(int) 25 => 'one',
			(int) 26 => '27-3-1980',
			(int) 27 => 'Two',
			(int) 28 => 'one',
			(int) 29 => 'two',
			(int) 30 => 'two',
			(int) 31 => 'one',
			(int) 32 => '1',
			(int) 33 => '10-11-81',
			(int) 34 => '1',
			(int) 35 => '302',
			(int) 36 => '324',
			(int) 37 => '449'
		),
		'DATE' => array(
			(int) 0 => '6 months',
			(int) 1 => '6 months',
			(int) 2 => '3 months',
			(int) 3 => '6 months',
			(int) 4 => '34',
			(int) 5 => '6 months',
			(int) 6 => '3 months',
			(int) 7 => 'PW 15',
			(int) 8 => '1 -4-80',
			(int) 9 => 'just three days',
			(int) 10 => 'PW 17',
			(int) 11 => 'PW 1',
			(int) 12 => 'PW 3',
			(int) 13 => 'his age as 17 years',
			(int) 14 => '17 years',
			(int) 15 => '27th March, 1980',
			(int) 16 => 'the day',
			(int) 17 => '16 years of age',
			(int) 18 => '1964',
			(int) 19 => '16 years of age',
			(int) 20 => '1970',
			(int) 21 => '1970',
			(int) 22 => 'the age of 16 years',
			(int) 23 => '16 years of age',
			(int) 24 => '1970',
			(int) 25 => '1994',
			(int) 26 => '16 years of age',
			(int) 27 => '1990',
			(int) 28 => 'more than 26 years of age'
		),
		'GPE' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Raisinghnagar',
			(int) 1 => 'Singh',
			(int) 2 => 'Singh',
			(int) 3 => 'Kumar',
			(int) 4 => 'Amritlal',
			(int) 5 => 'Singh',
			(int) 6 => 'Kanhaiyalal',
			(int) 7 => 'Momen',
			(int) 8 => 'Inderpal',
			(int) 9 => 'Ramlal',
			(int) 10 => 'Imratlal',
			(int) 11 => 'Momen',
			(int) 12 => 'Billoo.10',
			(int) 13 => 'PW',
			(int) 14 => 'Amritlal',
			(int) 15 => 'PW',
			(int) 16 => 'Baldeo',
			(int) 17 => 'Baldeo',
			(int) 18 => 'Bachan',
			(int) 19 => 'Kamlal',
			(int) 20 => 'Cr',
			(int) 21 => 'Ganganagar',
			(int) 22 => 'Ganganagar',
			(int) 23 => 'Kumar v. State',
			(int) 24 => 'Sujana v. State of',
			(int) 25 => 'Rajasthan'
		),
		'TIME' => array(
			(int) 0 => '11-30 p.m.',
			(int) 1 => 'the same night',
			(int) 2 => '11-20 p.m. i.e.'
		),
		'LOC' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Gobind Singh',
			(int) 1 => 'Gobind Singh',
			(int) 2 => 'Gobind Singh',
			(int) 3 => 'Gobind',
			(int) 4 => 'Gobind Singh',
			(int) 5 => 'Gobind Singh',
			(int) 6 => 'Gobind',
			(int) 7 => 'Gobind',
			(int) 8 => 'Gobind',
			(int) 9 => 'Gobind Singh',
			(int) 10 => 'Gobind Singh',
			(int) 11 => 'Gobind Singh',
			(int) 12 => 'Gobind Singh Under Section',
			(int) 13 => 'Gobind',
			(int) 14 => 'Gobind',
			(int) 15 => 'Gobind',
			(int) 16 => 'Gobind Singh',
			(int) 17 => 'Gobind',
			(int) 18 => 'Gobind Singh',
			(int) 19 => 'Gobind Singh',
			(int) 20 => 'Gobind Singh',
			(int) 21 => 'Gobind Singh',
			(int) 22 => 'Gobind Singh',
			(int) 23 => 'Gobind Singh'
		),
		'ORDINAL' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'First'
		),
		'WORK_OF_ART' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Child''
		),
		'EVENT' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Children Act'
		)
	),
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '757399',
			'acts' => 'Rajasthan Children Act, 1970 - Sections 2, 3, 20, 21, 24, 26 and 39; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 34, 302, 324 and 449; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 313',
			'appealno' => 'Criminal Appeal No. 26 of 1982',
			'appellant' => 'Gobind Singh and anr.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Gobind Singh and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan',
			'casenote' => ' - 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.  -  12. Apart from this, there is one more strong! 25. A reading of the above provision clearly indicates that if proceedings in respect of a child were pending in any Court and the provisions of Act have been made applicable, concerned Court could record finding and instead of passing any sentence, forward the child to the Children Court which is empowered to pass orders, in respect of child in accordance with the provisions of the Children Act.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Sujana v. State of Rajasthan;',
			'citingcases' => '302, IPC -- Life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 50 
449, IPC -- 6 months R.I. 
324, IPC -- 6 months R.I. 
323/34, IPC -- 3 months R.I. 
Hanuman :
302 read with 34, IPC -- Life imprisonment and 
             fine of Rs. 50 
449, IPC -- 6 months R.I. 
324 r/w 34, IPC -- 6 months R.I. 
323, IPC -- 3 months R.I.
',
			'counselplain' => ' D.K. Purohit, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' UCS Singhvi, Public Prosecutor',
			'court' => 'Rajasthan',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1997-01-30',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' G.L. Gupta and; S.C. Mital, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">G.L. Gupta, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Through this appeal appellants Gobind Singh and Hanuman have challenged their conviction and sentence recorded under various Sections of the Indian Penal Code by the learned Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar vide judgment dated 9-12-81 as per the following description:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Gobind Singh :302, IPC -- Life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 50 449, IPC -- 6 months R.I. 324, IPC -- 6 months R.I. 323/34, IPC -- 3 months R.I. Hanuman :302 read with 34, IPC -- Life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 50 449, IPC -- 6 months R.I. 324 r/w 34, IPC -- 6 months R.I. 323, IPC -- 3 months R.I.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The case relates to the occurrence which took place at about 10-30 p.m. on 27-3-80 at the house of Baldeo Singh in Ward No. 12 of Raisinghnagar. The prosecution case is that Baldeo Singh and his-family members including Jaswant Singh alias Billoo were having rest in their house when some persons called Billoo from outside and they started hitting the shutters. Some 8 persdns entered the house and they caught hold of Billoo and they gave beatings to him. Even knife injury was caused to him. When Baldeo Singh and his father tried to intervene, they were also beaten. Because of the injuries sustained in the occurrence Billoo died at the spot. The FIR was lodged at about 11-30 p.m. on the same night. The police registered a case. After the completion of usual investigation, the police submitted a challan against 8 persons including the present appellants.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The prosecution examined P.W. 1 Baldeo Singh, P.W. 2 Vachan Singh, P.W. 3 Sant Kaur, P.W. 4 Laxmi, P.W. 5 Kapoor Singh, P.W. 6 Charandas, P.W. 7 Avinash Kumar, P.W. 8 * Rajkumar Batra, P.W. 9 Amolakram, P.W. 10 Amritlal, P.W. 11 Hetram, P.W. 12 Chimanlal, P.W. 13 Thakar Singh, P.W. 14 Bantsingh, P.W. 15 Nazir Ahmed, P.W. 16 Prem Singh, P.W. 17 Dr. Gangaram, P.W. 18 Kanhaiyalal and P.W. 19 Devendra Singh. Accused in their statements denied the correctness of the statements of prosecution witnesses. The learned Sessions Judge found that Billoo had met homicidal death: He further found that the involvement of 6 persons named in the FIR was not proved on record. He found that only Gobind Singh and Hanuman had taken part in the occurrence and they had knife and chain with them and knife injury was caused by Gobind Singh which resulted in the death of Billoo. Considering that Gobind Singh and Hanuman had common intention, the learned Sessions Judge convicted Hanuman with the aid of Section 34 of IPC. Both the appellants have challenged their conviction and sentence.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The contention of Mr. Purohit, learned counsel for the appellants is threefold :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) All the prosecution witnesses have turned hostile and when their testimony was not believed in respect of 6 persons, the appellants could not be convicted on the basis of their testimony; (ii) If the prosecution case to any extent is believable, it is only against Gobind Singh whose name was disclosed to the family members just after the occurrence and conviction of Hanuman deserves to be quashed; (iii) Gobind Singh was child on the date of occurrence and as the Children Act had come into force before the judgment was delivered, he could not be sentenced to imprisonment and he could only be dealt with under the provisions of the Children Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, has tried to support the judgment of the trial Court. He contended that on the mere ground that the witnesses have turned hostile, the whole of the prosecution case should not be thrown away and the part of the statements of the witnesses should be believed which finds corroboration in other evidence. He, however, agreed that the provisions of the Children Act had become applicable in the district of Ganganagar before the decision of this case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. We have given the matter our thoughtful consideration.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. In the FIR, the involvement of 8 persons was disclosed. Not only this, it was also stated that all the accused had expressed their intention to kill Billoo as he was instrumental in the beating of Momen. However, during trial, all the witnesses have turned hostile and they have totally excluded 6 persons namely Amar Singh, Inderpal, Ramlal, Rakesh and Imratlal. The witnesses have not deposed that persons other than Gobind and Hanuman were having weapons in their hands. In the evidence it has also not come that the assailants had disclosed the background of the beating that Billoo had got Momen beaten by Debu. Even Bachan Singh (PW 2) has not deposed that any time any of the assailants had expressed intention to do away with the life of Billoo. It was also the version in the FIR that Banta Singh, a neighbour and the other members of the family had also seen the occurrence. However, during trial none of those witnesses have deposed that they had seen the occurrence of beating. Thus, the prosecution story as unfolded in the FIR has been substantially changed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. As already pointed out, all the eye-witnesses have turned hostile. However, it is not the legal position that when the witnesses turn hostile their whole of the statements are to be discarded. Such part of the statements of the witnesses can safely be relied which finds corroboration by other evidence.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. First, we shall try to see whether the prosecution case regarding the involvement of Gobind Singh in the case is proved on record. Both the witnesses Baldeo Singh and Bachan Singh have deposed that accused Gobind had a knife in his hand and he had caused blow to the chest of Billoo. This fact was also stated in clear terms in the FIR Ex. P/l. Thus, so far as the involvement of Gobind Singh in the occurrence is concerned, the witnesses cannot be disbelieved. It is fully established that Gobind had inflicted a knife blow on the chest of Billoo.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. The medical evidence contained in the statement of Dr. Ganga Ram (P.W. 7) lends corroboration to the direct evidence. Dr. Ganga Ram has desposed that Jaswant Singh alias Billoo had a punctured wound of 3 x 2 cms communicating with left thorasic cavity. He has deposed that this injury was caused by a sharp edged weapon. Not a single question has been directed to the medical officer regarding this part of the evidence and therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve this part of the prosecution case that Billoo had suffered knife injury. Thus, the medical evidence corroborates the direct evidence.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. A knife was recovered in consequence of the disclosure statement made by accused Gobind after his arrest. Nazir /Ahmed (PW 15) has deposed that he had arrested Gobind vide Memo Ex. P/l 7 and thereafter Gobind gave information Ex. P/30 on 1 -4-80 and in consequence of this information he took Gobind to his house from where he took out a knife having blood stains. The Recovery Memo is Ex. P/7. This recovery was made in the presence of PW. 10 Amritlal and PW. 11 Hetram. Both the witnesses have admitted that the recovery memo bears their signatures. They have turned hostile and have deposed that the recovery was not made in their presence. However, they have not deposed that the police had forced them to put their signatures on the recovery memo. The witnesses being educated would not put their signatures on the papers without seeing the transaction. The fact that they have admitted their signatures on the recovery memo and they have at the same time not deposed that the police had put pressure on them, it cannot be believed that the recovery was not made in their presence. There is absolutely no reason to disbelieve Nazir Ahmed PW. 15 I.O. who has deposed that the knife was recovered from the house of the accused in pursuance of the disclosure statement made by him. This knife was duly sealed at the time of recovery and was sent for chemical examination. The Report of the FSL Ex. P/43 reveals that the knife had blood marks over it. When the knife was examined by the serologist, it was found that the knife had human blood. The fact that the knife was recovered just three days after the occurrence from the house of the accused having blood marks, goes to show that the accused Gobind Singh had used this knife in the occurrence. Thus, the recovery of the blood stained knife lends further corroboration to the testimony of the eye-witnesses.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. Apart from this, there is one more strong! circumstance against accused Gobind Singh. Gobind Singh was examined by Dr. Ganga Ram (PW 17) on 27-3-1980 at 11-20 p.m. i.e. immediately after the occurrence. Two injuries were found on his person. Gobind Singh has admitted in his statement that the doctor had examined him. Gobind Singh must have sustained the injuries at the time of occurrence. Thus, there is further corroboration of the direct evidence.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. On the aforesaid direct and circumstantial evidence, in our opinion, the learned Sessions Judge has rightly held that accused Gobind Singh had entered into the house of Baldeo Singh and he had caused knife blow to Billoo. By the medical evidence it is established Athat Billoo had died of the injury suffered by him which was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. We find that the conviction of Gobind Singh Under Section 302, IPC does not warrant interference.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Baldeo Singh (PW 1) has also deposed that when he was intervening, Gobind Singh had inflicted knife blow to him which he sustained at his left hand finger. An injury caused by sharp edged weapon was found on the person of Baldeo Singh at the time of his medical examination. It is fully established that Gobind had caused one simple injury to Baldeo Singh by knife. He has, thus, rightly been convicted for having caused a simple injury to Baldeo Singh.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. Now, we shall consider the case against Hanuman. Both Baldeo Singh and Bachan Singh have deposed that Hanuman had a chain in his hand and he had caused injuries to Billoo and Baldeo Singh.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. A chain was also recovered at the instance of this accused. However, as the chain did not have blood stains, the learned Sessions Judge has not given any weight to that recovery.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. There are the statements of two witnesses in which the involvement of Hanuman has been disclosed. Both the witnesses have been declared hostile. As already observed a fact appearing in the statements of hostile witnesses can be believed if there is corroboration of that fact by any other evidence. The trial Court has found that recovery of chain is of no consequence. There is no other evidence which can be seen as corroborative piece of evidence to the statements of Baldeo and Bachan, the two hostile witnesses. Even Dr. Ganga Ram has not deposed that any of injuries sustained by Billoo or Baldeo Singh could be caused by a chain. That being so, it cannot be found proved that the injuries suffered by deceased Billoo and injured were inflicted by accused Hanuman.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. Apart from this, the most striking fact is that according to Sant Kaur (PW 3) who is the mother of Billoo, she was informed by Baldeo Singh that Gobind was the person who had given beatings to Billoo. This part of the statement of Sant Kaur indicates that name of Hanuman as assailant did not appear though a person immediately after the occurrence. Had Hanuman been identified, his name would have also been disclosed by Baldeo Singh to his mother. It appears that when the report Ex. P/35 was lodged by one of the named assailants and it contained the name of Hanuman, he was named as assailant in the FIR Ex. P/l. It is significant to point out that according to Baldeo Singh, he had named Inderpal, Kamlal, Rakesh, Amratlal, and Atner Singh in the FIR at the instance of the police. It is, thus, obvious that though Baldeo Singh and Bachan Singh had not identified by person other than Gobind but their names were stated in the FIR at the instance of the police. The police knew the names of certain persons because it had already received the report Fix. P/35. In our opinion, the case against accused Hanuman in the aforesaid circumstances is not free from doubt and the benefit .of doubt goes to accused Hanuman.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. Consequently, the conviction of accused Gobind is sustainable but the conviction of accused, Hanuman cannot be maintained. He is entitled to acquittal.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. Now we switch over to the last argument of the learned counsel for the appellants that Gobind Singh could not be sentenced as he was child on the date of occurrence. In his statement Under Section 313, Cr. P.C. Gobind Singh disclosed his age as 17 years. The learned Sessions Judge also estimated his age at 17 years. This statement was recorded on 1-12-1981. The occurrence had taken place on 27th March, 1980. It is thus, obvious that on the day of occurrence, Gobind was below 16 years of age. The learned Sessions Judge has observed that it was argued before him that in the school register July, 1964 was recorded as the date of birth of Gobind Singh. He has not discussed this contention in his judgment. Keeping in view the age recorded in the statement of the accused, it has to be found that accused Gobind Singh was below 16 years of age when the offence was committed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. Rajasthan Children Act, 1970 was made applicable in Ganganagar district vide notification dated 10-11-81 and a Children Court was established at Bikaner having jurisdiction over the revenue districts of Bikaner, Ganganagar and Churu. Clause (d) of Section 2 of the Rajasthan Children Act, 1970 defines 'Child'. A boy who has not attained the age of 16 years is a child as per the definition. Section 24 mandates that there shall not be joint trial of a child with a person who is not child. Section 21 lists the orders which can be passed regarding a delinquent child. A reading of this section makes it evident that a child cannot be sentenced to imprisonment. Section 20 of the Act provides that a child having been charged with an offence shall be tried in accordance with the provisions of Section 39. It is, thus, obvious that if a boy below 16 years of age is charged with an offence, he cannot be tried along with other accused who is not a child. He can only be tried in accordance with the provisions of Section 39 of the Act and then cannot be sentenced to imprisonment. He can be dealt with under the provisions of Section 21 of the Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. Section 3 of the Act provides that where an enquiry has been initiated against a child and during the course of such inquiry a child ceases to be child then also the enquiry shall be continued and orders would be passed in respect, of such person as if such person had continued to be t child.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. On a careful reading of the above provisions it has to be accepted that Gobind Singh, who was child could not be tried along with other accused persons and an enquiry Under Section 39 could be held against him by the Children Court. Of course, at the time the trial had started, the Children Act had not been made applicable in Ganganagar district but before the judgment was pronounced, the Act had come into force and therefore, sentence could not be passed against Gobind Singh by the learned Sessions Judge.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">24. Section 26 of the Raj. Children Act, 1970 reads as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Special provision in respect of pending cases - Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, all proceedings in respect of a child pending in any Court in any area on the date on which this Act comes into force in that area, shall be continued in that Court as if this Act had not been passed and if the Court finds that the child has committed an offence, it shall record such finding and, instead of passing any sentence in respect of the child, forward the child to the Children's Court which shall pass orders in respect of that child in accordance with the provisions of this Act that the child has committed the offence.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">25. A reading of the above provision clearly indicates that if proceedings in respect of a child were pending in any Court and the provisions of Act have been made applicable, concerned Court could record finding and instead of passing any sentence, forward the child to the Children Court which is empowered to pass orders, in respect of child in accordance with the provisions of the Children Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">26. The learned Sessions Judge has not acted Under Section 26 of the Act on the ground that accused Gobind Singh remained no more a child at the time of pronouncement of judgment. In our opinion, the correct interpretation of Section 26 is that even when a person ceases to be a child still he shall be continued to be taken as child for the purposes of Section 26 and shall be dealt with as per the provisions of the Children Act. The proper course, therefore, for the learned Sessions Judge was to send the accused Gobind Singh to the Children Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">27. Now the question that arises is as to what orders should be passed by this Court. In the similar circumstances, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pradeep Kumar v. State of U.P. AIR 1994 SC 104 : (1994 Cri LJ 148) sustained the conviction of the accused but quashed the sentence awarded to him and directed his release. Accused in that case were also below 16 years of age and were found guilty of the offence Under Section 302, IPC and sentenced by the learned Sessions Judge. On the ground that the accused were children at the time of commission of the offence, the Hon'ble Apex Court quashed their sentences. This Court had also occasion to deal with same situation in case of Sujana v. State of Rajasthan, (1990) 1 Rajasthan LR 601. In that case, the provisions of Children Act were made applicable in the area when the appeal was pending. This Court upheld the conviction but quashed the sentence. In the instant case appellant Gobind Singh has now attained more than 26 years of age. It is, therefore, inexpedient to forward him to the Children Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">28. Consequently, appeal of Gobind Singh is partly allowed. While maintaining his conviction Under Sections 302, 324 and 449, IPC, the sentences are set aside.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">29. The appeal of Hanuman is allowed, his conviction and sentences are set aside and he is acquitted of the charges levelled against him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">30. The appellants shall not surrender to the bail bonds.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '1997CriLJ1825',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Rajasthan',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '757399'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Gobind Singh and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan Semantic Analysis'
$shops = array(
	'LAW' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Section 34',
		(int) 1 => 'the Children Act',
		(int) 2 => 'the Children Act',
		(int) 3 => 'Section 2',
		(int) 4 => 'Section 24',
		(int) 5 => 'Section 21',
		(int) 6 => 'Section 20 of the Act',
		(int) 7 => 'Section 39',
		(int) 8 => 'Section 39',
		(int) 9 => 'Section 21',
		(int) 10 => 'Section 3 of the Act',
		(int) 11 => 'Section 39',
		(int) 12 => 'the Children Act',
		(int) 13 => 'Section 26 of the Raj',
		(int) 14 => 'Section 26',
		(int) 15 => 'Section 26',
		(int) 16 => 'Section 26',
		(int) 17 => 'the Children Act'
	),
	'PERSON' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'G.L. Gupta',
		(int) 1 => 'Hanuman',
		(int) 2 => 'Raisinghnagar',
		(int) 3 => 'Baldeo Singh',
		(int) 4 => 'Baldeo Singh',
		(int) 5 => 'Jaswant Singh',
		(int) 6 => 'Billoo',
		(int) 7 => 'Billoo',
		(int) 8 => 'Billoo',
		(int) 9 => 'Baldeo Singh',
		(int) 10 => 'Billoo',
		(int) 11 => 'Rajkumar Batra',
		(int) 12 => 'P.W.',
		(int) 13 => 'Prem Singh',
		(int) 14 => 'Gangaram',
		(int) 15 => 'Devendra Singh',
		(int) 16 => 'Billoo',
		(int) 17 => 'Hanuman',
		(int) 18 => 'Billoo',
		(int) 19 => 'Gobind Singh',
		(int) 20 => 'Hanuman',
		(int) 21 => 'Hanuman',
		(int) 22 => 'sentence.4',
		(int) 23 => 'Purohit',
		(int) 24 => 'Singh',
		(int) 25 => 'Ganganagar',
		(int) 26 => 'Billoo',
		(int) 27 => 'Amar Singh',
		(int) 28 => 'Hanuman',
		(int) 29 => 'Billoo',
		(int) 30 => 'Debu',
		(int) 31 => 'Bachan Singh',
		(int) 32 => 'Billoo',
		(int) 33 => 'Banta Singh',
		(int) 34 => 'Baldeo Singh',
		(int) 35 => 'Bachan Singh',
		(int) 36 => 'Billoo',
		(int) 37 => 'Ganga Ram',
		(int) 38 => 'Ganga Ram',
		(int) 39 => 'Jaswant Singh',
		(int) 40 => 'Billoo',
		(int) 41 => 'Billoo',
		(int) 42 => 'Nazir /Ahmed',
		(int) 43 => 'Memo Ex',
		(int) 44 => 'The Recovery Memo is Ex',
		(int) 45 => 'Nazir Ahmed PW',
		(int) 46 => 'I.O.',
		(int) 47 => 'Singh',
		(int) 48 => 'Ganga Ram',
		(int) 49 => 'Baldeo Singh',
		(int) 50 => 'Billoo',
		(int) 51 => 'Athat Billoo',
		(int) 52 => 'Baldeo Singh',
		(int) 53 => 'Gobind Singh',
		(int) 54 => 'Baldeo Singh',
		(int) 55 => 'Baldeo Singh',
		(int) 56 => 'Baldeo Singh',
		(int) 57 => 'Bachan Singh',
		(int) 58 => 'Hanuman',
		(int) 59 => 'Billoo',
		(int) 60 => 'Baldeo Singh.16',
		(int) 61 => 'Ganga Ram',
		(int) 62 => 'Billoo',
		(int) 63 => 'Baldeo Singh',
		(int) 64 => 'Billoo',
		(int) 65 => 'Sant Kaur',
		(int) 66 => 'Billoo',
		(int) 67 => 'Baldeo Singh',
		(int) 68 => 'Billoo',
		(int) 69 => 'Sant Kaur',
		(int) 70 => 'Hanuman',
		(int) 71 => 'Hanuman',
		(int) 72 => 'Baldeo Singh',
		(int) 73 => 'Hanuman',
		(int) 74 => 'Baldeo Singh',
		(int) 75 => 'Inderpal',
		(int) 76 => 'Atner Singh',
		(int) 77 => 'Baldeo Singh',
		(int) 78 => 'Bachan Singh',
		(int) 79 => 'Hanuman',
		(int) 80 => 'Hanuman',
		(int) 81 => 'P.C. Gobind Singh',
		(int) 82 => 'Bikaner',
		(int) 83 => 'Bikaner',
		(int) 84 => 'Ganganagar',
		(int) 85 => 'Gobind Singh',
		(int) 86 => 'Gobind Singh',
		(int) 87 => 'Hanuman'
	),
	'NORP' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'J.1',
		(int) 1 => 'Sessions'
	),
	'PRODUCT' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Gobind Singh',
		(int) 1 => 'P.W. 1 Baldeo Singh',
		(int) 2 => 'P.W. 8 *',
		(int) 3 => 'Rakesh',
		(int) 4 => 'Cri LJ 148'
	),
	'ORG' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Sections of the Indian Penal Code',
		(int) 1 => 'IPC',
		(int) 2 => 'IPC',
		(int) 3 => 'R.I. 324',
		(int) 4 => 'IPC',
		(int) 5 => 'R.I. 323/34',
		(int) 6 => 'IPC',
		(int) 7 => 'R.I. Hanuman',
		(int) 8 => 'IPC',
		(int) 9 => 'IPC',
		(int) 10 => 'R.I. 324',
		(int) 11 => 'IPC',
		(int) 12 => 'R.I. 323',
		(int) 13 => 'IPC',
		(int) 14 => 'FIR',
		(int) 15 => 'P.W. 2',
		(int) 16 => 'P.W. 4',
		(int) 17 => 'P.W. 6',
		(int) 18 => 'P.W. 9 Amolakram',
		(int) 19 => 'P.W.',
		(int) 20 => 'P.W. 12 Chimanlal',
		(int) 21 => 'P.W.',
		(int) 22 => 'P.W.',
		(int) 23 => 'P.W.',
		(int) 24 => 'P.W.',
		(int) 25 => 'FIR',
		(int) 26 => 'IPC',
		(int) 27 => 'Hanuman',
		(int) 28 => 'Public Prosecutor',
		(int) 29 => 'Court',
		(int) 30 => 'FIR',
		(int) 31 => 'FIR',
		(int) 32 => 'FIR',
		(int) 33 => 'changed.8',
		(int) 34 => 'Gobind',
		(int) 35 => 'the FIR Ex',
		(int) 36 => 'Gobind',
		(int) 37 => 'cms',
		(int) 38 => 'P/l 7',
		(int) 39 => 'Gobind',
		(int) 40 => 'IPC',
		(int) 41 => 'Gobind',
		(int) 42 => 'Hanuman',
		(int) 43 => 'Hanuman',
		(int) 44 => 'Court',
		(int) 45 => 'FIR',
		(int) 46 => 'FIR',
		(int) 47 => 'a Children Court',
		(int) 48 => 'Churu',
		(int) 49 => 'the Children Court',
		(int) 50 => 'Court',
		(int) 51 => 'Court',
		(int) 52 => 'Court',
		(int) 53 => 'the Children's Court',
		(int) 54 => 'Court',
		(int) 55 => 'Court',
		(int) 56 => 'the Children Court',
		(int) 57 => 'the Children Act.26',
		(int) 58 => 'Court',
		(int) 59 => 'the Hon'ble Apex Court',
		(int) 60 => 'U.P. AIR 1994',
		(int) 61 => 'IPC',
		(int) 62 => 'the Hon'ble Apex Court',
		(int) 63 => 'Court',
		(int) 64 => 'IPC'
	),
	'CARDINAL' => array(
		(int) 0 => '9-12-81',
		(int) 1 => '302',
		(int) 2 => '50 449',
		(int) 3 => '302',
		(int) 4 => '34',
		(int) 5 => '50 449',
		(int) 6 => 'about 10-30 p.m.',
		(int) 7 => '27-3-80',
		(int) 8 => '12',
		(int) 9 => 'Some 8',
		(int) 10 => '8',
		(int) 11 => '10',
		(int) 12 => '13',
		(int) 13 => '14',
		(int) 14 => '16',
		(int) 15 => '18',
		(int) 16 => '19',
		(int) 17 => '6',
		(int) 18 => '6',
		(int) 19 => '8',
		(int) 20 => '6',
		(int) 21 => '3',
		(int) 22 => '2',
		(int) 23 => '10',
		(int) 24 => '15',
		(int) 25 => 'one',
		(int) 26 => '27-3-1980',
		(int) 27 => 'Two',
		(int) 28 => 'one',
		(int) 29 => 'two',
		(int) 30 => 'two',
		(int) 31 => 'one',
		(int) 32 => '1',
		(int) 33 => '10-11-81',
		(int) 34 => '1',
		(int) 35 => '302',
		(int) 36 => '324',
		(int) 37 => '449'
	),
	'DATE' => array(
		(int) 0 => '6 months',
		(int) 1 => '6 months',
		(int) 2 => '3 months',
		(int) 3 => '6 months',
		(int) 4 => '34',
		(int) 5 => '6 months',
		(int) 6 => '3 months',
		(int) 7 => 'PW 15',
		(int) 8 => '1 -4-80',
		(int) 9 => 'just three days',
		(int) 10 => 'PW 17',
		(int) 11 => 'PW 1',
		(int) 12 => 'PW 3',
		(int) 13 => 'his age as 17 years',
		(int) 14 => '17 years',
		(int) 15 => '27th March, 1980',
		(int) 16 => 'the day',
		(int) 17 => '16 years of age',
		(int) 18 => '1964',
		(int) 19 => '16 years of age',
		(int) 20 => '1970',
		(int) 21 => '1970',
		(int) 22 => 'the age of 16 years',
		(int) 23 => '16 years of age',
		(int) 24 => '1970',
		(int) 25 => '1994',
		(int) 26 => '16 years of age',
		(int) 27 => '1990',
		(int) 28 => 'more than 26 years of age'
	),
	'GPE' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Raisinghnagar',
		(int) 1 => 'Singh',
		(int) 2 => 'Singh',
		(int) 3 => 'Kumar',
		(int) 4 => 'Amritlal',
		(int) 5 => 'Singh',
		(int) 6 => 'Kanhaiyalal',
		(int) 7 => 'Momen',
		(int) 8 => 'Inderpal',
		(int) 9 => 'Ramlal',
		(int) 10 => 'Imratlal',
		(int) 11 => 'Momen',
		(int) 12 => 'Billoo.10',
		(int) 13 => 'PW',
		(int) 14 => 'Amritlal',
		(int) 15 => 'PW',
		(int) 16 => 'Baldeo',
		(int) 17 => 'Baldeo',
		(int) 18 => 'Bachan',
		(int) 19 => 'Kamlal',
		(int) 20 => 'Cr',
		(int) 21 => 'Ganganagar',
		(int) 22 => 'Ganganagar',
		(int) 23 => 'Kumar v. State',
		(int) 24 => 'Sujana v. State of',
		(int) 25 => 'Rajasthan'
	),
	'TIME' => array(
		(int) 0 => '11-30 p.m.',
		(int) 1 => 'the same night',
		(int) 2 => '11-20 p.m. i.e.'
	),
	'LOC' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Gobind Singh',
		(int) 1 => 'Gobind Singh',
		(int) 2 => 'Gobind Singh',
		(int) 3 => 'Gobind',
		(int) 4 => 'Gobind Singh',
		(int) 5 => 'Gobind Singh',
		(int) 6 => 'Gobind',
		(int) 7 => 'Gobind',
		(int) 8 => 'Gobind',
		(int) 9 => 'Gobind Singh',
		(int) 10 => 'Gobind Singh',
		(int) 11 => 'Gobind Singh',
		(int) 12 => 'Gobind Singh Under Section',
		(int) 13 => 'Gobind',
		(int) 14 => 'Gobind',
		(int) 15 => 'Gobind',
		(int) 16 => 'Gobind Singh',
		(int) 17 => 'Gobind',
		(int) 18 => 'Gobind Singh',
		(int) 19 => 'Gobind Singh',
		(int) 20 => 'Gobind Singh',
		(int) 21 => 'Gobind Singh',
		(int) 22 => 'Gobind Singh',
		(int) 23 => 'Gobind Singh'
	),
	'ORDINAL' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'First'
	),
	'WORK_OF_ART' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Child''
	),
	'EVENT' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Children Act'
	)
)
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '757399',
		'acts' => 'Rajasthan Children Act, 1970 - Sections 2, 3, 20, 21, 24, 26 and 39; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 34, 302, 324 and 449; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 313',
		'appealno' => 'Criminal Appeal No. 26 of 1982',
		'appellant' => 'Gobind Singh and anr.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Gobind Singh and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan',
		'casenote' => ' - 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.  -  12. Apart from this, there is one more strong! 25. A reading of the above provision clearly indicates that if proceedings in respect of a child were pending in any Court and the provisions of Act have been made applicable, concerned Court could record finding and instead of passing any sentence, forward the child to the Children Court which is empowered to pass orders, in respect of child in accordance with the provisions of the Children Act.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Sujana v. State of Rajasthan;',
		'citingcases' => '302, IPC -- Life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 50 
449, IPC -- 6 months R.I. 
324, IPC -- 6 months R.I. 
323/34, IPC -- 3 months R.I. 
Hanuman :
302 read with 34, IPC -- Life imprisonment and 
             fine of Rs. 50 
449, IPC -- 6 months R.I. 
324 r/w 34, IPC -- 6 months R.I. 
323, IPC -- 3 months R.I.
',
		'counselplain' => ' D.K. Purohit, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' UCS Singhvi, Public Prosecutor',
		'court' => 'Rajasthan',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1997-01-30',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' G.L. Gupta and; S.C. Mital, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">G.L. Gupta, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Through this appeal appellants Gobind Singh and Hanuman have challenged their conviction and sentence recorded under various Sections of the Indian Penal Code by the learned Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar vide judgment dated 9-12-81 as per the following description:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Gobind Singh :302, IPC -- Life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 50 449, IPC -- 6 months R.I. 324, IPC -- 6 months R.I. 323/34, IPC -- 3 months R.I. Hanuman :302 read with 34, IPC -- Life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 50 449, IPC -- 6 months R.I. 324 r/w 34, IPC -- 6 months R.I. 323, IPC -- 3 months R.I.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The case relates to the occurrence which took place at about 10-30 p.m. on 27-3-80 at the house of Baldeo Singh in Ward No. 12 of Raisinghnagar. The prosecution case is that Baldeo Singh and his-family members including Jaswant Singh alias Billoo were having rest in their house when some persons called Billoo from outside and they started hitting the shutters. Some 8 persdns entered the house and they caught hold of Billoo and they gave beatings to him. Even knife injury was caused to him. When Baldeo Singh and his father tried to intervene, they were also beaten. Because of the injuries sustained in the occurrence Billoo died at the spot. The FIR was lodged at about 11-30 p.m. on the same night. The police registered a case. After the completion of usual investigation, the police submitted a challan against 8 persons including the present appellants.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The prosecution examined P.W. 1 Baldeo Singh, P.W. 2 Vachan Singh, P.W. 3 Sant Kaur, P.W. 4 Laxmi, P.W. 5 Kapoor Singh, P.W. 6 Charandas, P.W. 7 Avinash Kumar, P.W. 8 * Rajkumar Batra, P.W. 9 Amolakram, P.W. 10 Amritlal, P.W. 11 Hetram, P.W. 12 Chimanlal, P.W. 13 Thakar Singh, P.W. 14 Bantsingh, P.W. 15 Nazir Ahmed, P.W. 16 Prem Singh, P.W. 17 Dr. Gangaram, P.W. 18 Kanhaiyalal and P.W. 19 Devendra Singh. Accused in their statements denied the correctness of the statements of prosecution witnesses. The learned Sessions Judge found that Billoo had met homicidal death: He further found that the involvement of 6 persons named in the FIR was not proved on record. He found that only Gobind Singh and Hanuman had taken part in the occurrence and they had knife and chain with them and knife injury was caused by Gobind Singh which resulted in the death of Billoo. Considering that Gobind Singh and Hanuman had common intention, the learned Sessions Judge convicted Hanuman with the aid of Section 34 of IPC. Both the appellants have challenged their conviction and sentence.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The contention of Mr. Purohit, learned counsel for the appellants is threefold :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) All the prosecution witnesses have turned hostile and when their testimony was not believed in respect of 6 persons, the appellants could not be convicted on the basis of their testimony; (ii) If the prosecution case to any extent is believable, it is only against Gobind Singh whose name was disclosed to the family members just after the occurrence and conviction of Hanuman deserves to be quashed; (iii) Gobind Singh was child on the date of occurrence and as the Children Act had come into force before the judgment was delivered, he could not be sentenced to imprisonment and he could only be dealt with under the provisions of the Children Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, has tried to support the judgment of the trial Court. He contended that on the mere ground that the witnesses have turned hostile, the whole of the prosecution case should not be thrown away and the part of the statements of the witnesses should be believed which finds corroboration in other evidence. He, however, agreed that the provisions of the Children Act had become applicable in the district of Ganganagar before the decision of this case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. We have given the matter our thoughtful consideration.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. In the FIR, the involvement of 8 persons was disclosed. Not only this, it was also stated that all the accused had expressed their intention to kill Billoo as he was instrumental in the beating of Momen. However, during trial, all the witnesses have turned hostile and they have totally excluded 6 persons namely Amar Singh, Inderpal, Ramlal, Rakesh and Imratlal. The witnesses have not deposed that persons other than Gobind and Hanuman were having weapons in their hands. In the evidence it has also not come that the assailants had disclosed the background of the beating that Billoo had got Momen beaten by Debu. Even Bachan Singh (PW 2) has not deposed that any time any of the assailants had expressed intention to do away with the life of Billoo. It was also the version in the FIR that Banta Singh, a neighbour and the other members of the family had also seen the occurrence. However, during trial none of those witnesses have deposed that they had seen the occurrence of beating. Thus, the prosecution story as unfolded in the FIR has been substantially changed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. As already pointed out, all the eye-witnesses have turned hostile. However, it is not the legal position that when the witnesses turn hostile their whole of the statements are to be discarded. Such part of the statements of the witnesses can safely be relied which finds corroboration by other evidence.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. First, we shall try to see whether the prosecution case regarding the involvement of Gobind Singh in the case is proved on record. Both the witnesses Baldeo Singh and Bachan Singh have deposed that accused Gobind had a knife in his hand and he had caused blow to the chest of Billoo. This fact was also stated in clear terms in the FIR Ex. P/l. Thus, so far as the involvement of Gobind Singh in the occurrence is concerned, the witnesses cannot be disbelieved. It is fully established that Gobind had inflicted a knife blow on the chest of Billoo.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. The medical evidence contained in the statement of Dr. Ganga Ram (P.W. 7) lends corroboration to the direct evidence. Dr. Ganga Ram has desposed that Jaswant Singh alias Billoo had a punctured wound of 3 x 2 cms communicating with left thorasic cavity. He has deposed that this injury was caused by a sharp edged weapon. Not a single question has been directed to the medical officer regarding this part of the evidence and therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve this part of the prosecution case that Billoo had suffered knife injury. Thus, the medical evidence corroborates the direct evidence.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. A knife was recovered in consequence of the disclosure statement made by accused Gobind after his arrest. Nazir /Ahmed (PW 15) has deposed that he had arrested Gobind vide Memo Ex. P/l 7 and thereafter Gobind gave information Ex. P/30 on 1 -4-80 and in consequence of this information he took Gobind to his house from where he took out a knife having blood stains. The Recovery Memo is Ex. P/7. This recovery was made in the presence of PW. 10 Amritlal and PW. 11 Hetram. Both the witnesses have admitted that the recovery memo bears their signatures. They have turned hostile and have deposed that the recovery was not made in their presence. However, they have not deposed that the police had forced them to put their signatures on the recovery memo. The witnesses being educated would not put their signatures on the papers without seeing the transaction. The fact that they have admitted their signatures on the recovery memo and they have at the same time not deposed that the police had put pressure on them, it cannot be believed that the recovery was not made in their presence. There is absolutely no reason to disbelieve Nazir Ahmed PW. 15 I.O. who has deposed that the knife was recovered from the house of the accused in pursuance of the disclosure statement made by him. This knife was duly sealed at the time of recovery and was sent for chemical examination. The Report of the FSL Ex. P/43 reveals that the knife had blood marks over it. When the knife was examined by the serologist, it was found that the knife had human blood. The fact that the knife was recovered just three days after the occurrence from the house of the accused having blood marks, goes to show that the accused Gobind Singh had used this knife in the occurrence. Thus, the recovery of the blood stained knife lends further corroboration to the testimony of the eye-witnesses.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. Apart from this, there is one more strong! circumstance against accused Gobind Singh. Gobind Singh was examined by Dr. Ganga Ram (PW 17) on 27-3-1980 at 11-20 p.m. i.e. immediately after the occurrence. Two injuries were found on his person. Gobind Singh has admitted in his statement that the doctor had examined him. Gobind Singh must have sustained the injuries at the time of occurrence. Thus, there is further corroboration of the direct evidence.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. On the aforesaid direct and circumstantial evidence, in our opinion, the learned Sessions Judge has rightly held that accused Gobind Singh had entered into the house of Baldeo Singh and he had caused knife blow to Billoo. By the medical evidence it is established Athat Billoo had died of the injury suffered by him which was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. We find that the conviction of Gobind Singh Under Section 302, IPC does not warrant interference.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Baldeo Singh (PW 1) has also deposed that when he was intervening, Gobind Singh had inflicted knife blow to him which he sustained at his left hand finger. An injury caused by sharp edged weapon was found on the person of Baldeo Singh at the time of his medical examination. It is fully established that Gobind had caused one simple injury to Baldeo Singh by knife. He has, thus, rightly been convicted for having caused a simple injury to Baldeo Singh.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. Now, we shall consider the case against Hanuman. Both Baldeo Singh and Bachan Singh have deposed that Hanuman had a chain in his hand and he had caused injuries to Billoo and Baldeo Singh.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. A chain was also recovered at the instance of this accused. However, as the chain did not have blood stains, the learned Sessions Judge has not given any weight to that recovery.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. There are the statements of two witnesses in which the involvement of Hanuman has been disclosed. Both the witnesses have been declared hostile. As already observed a fact appearing in the statements of hostile witnesses can be believed if there is corroboration of that fact by any other evidence. The trial Court has found that recovery of chain is of no consequence. There is no other evidence which can be seen as corroborative piece of evidence to the statements of Baldeo and Bachan, the two hostile witnesses. Even Dr. Ganga Ram has not deposed that any of injuries sustained by Billoo or Baldeo Singh could be caused by a chain. That being so, it cannot be found proved that the injuries suffered by deceased Billoo and injured were inflicted by accused Hanuman.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. Apart from this, the most striking fact is that according to Sant Kaur (PW 3) who is the mother of Billoo, she was informed by Baldeo Singh that Gobind was the person who had given beatings to Billoo. This part of the statement of Sant Kaur indicates that name of Hanuman as assailant did not appear though a person immediately after the occurrence. Had Hanuman been identified, his name would have also been disclosed by Baldeo Singh to his mother. It appears that when the report Ex. P/35 was lodged by one of the named assailants and it contained the name of Hanuman, he was named as assailant in the FIR Ex. P/l. It is significant to point out that according to Baldeo Singh, he had named Inderpal, Kamlal, Rakesh, Amratlal, and Atner Singh in the FIR at the instance of the police. It is, thus, obvious that though Baldeo Singh and Bachan Singh had not identified by person other than Gobind but their names were stated in the FIR at the instance of the police. The police knew the names of certain persons because it had already received the report Fix. P/35. In our opinion, the case against accused Hanuman in the aforesaid circumstances is not free from doubt and the benefit .of doubt goes to accused Hanuman.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. Consequently, the conviction of accused Gobind is sustainable but the conviction of accused, Hanuman cannot be maintained. He is entitled to acquittal.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. Now we switch over to the last argument of the learned counsel for the appellants that Gobind Singh could not be sentenced as he was child on the date of occurrence. In his statement Under Section 313, Cr. P.C. Gobind Singh disclosed his age as 17 years. The learned Sessions Judge also estimated his age at 17 years. This statement was recorded on 1-12-1981. The occurrence had taken place on 27th March, 1980. It is thus, obvious that on the day of occurrence, Gobind was below 16 years of age. The learned Sessions Judge has observed that it was argued before him that in the school register July, 1964 was recorded as the date of birth of Gobind Singh. He has not discussed this contention in his judgment. Keeping in view the age recorded in the statement of the accused, it has to be found that accused Gobind Singh was below 16 years of age when the offence was committed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. Rajasthan Children Act, 1970 was made applicable in Ganganagar district vide notification dated 10-11-81 and a Children Court was established at Bikaner having jurisdiction over the revenue districts of Bikaner, Ganganagar and Churu. Clause (d) of Section 2 of the Rajasthan Children Act, 1970 defines 'Child'. A boy who has not attained the age of 16 years is a child as per the definition. Section 24 mandates that there shall not be joint trial of a child with a person who is not child. Section 21 lists the orders which can be passed regarding a delinquent child. A reading of this section makes it evident that a child cannot be sentenced to imprisonment. Section 20 of the Act provides that a child having been charged with an offence shall be tried in accordance with the provisions of Section 39. It is, thus, obvious that if a boy below 16 years of age is charged with an offence, he cannot be tried along with other accused who is not a child. He can only be tried in accordance with the provisions of Section 39 of the Act and then cannot be sentenced to imprisonment. He can be dealt with under the provisions of Section 21 of the Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. Section 3 of the Act provides that where an enquiry has been initiated against a child and during the course of such inquiry a child ceases to be child then also the enquiry shall be continued and orders would be passed in respect, of such person as if such person had continued to be t child.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. On a careful reading of the above provisions it has to be accepted that Gobind Singh, who was child could not be tried along with other accused persons and an enquiry Under Section 39 could be held against him by the Children Court. Of course, at the time the trial had started, the Children Act had not been made applicable in Ganganagar district but before the judgment was pronounced, the Act had come into force and therefore, sentence could not be passed against Gobind Singh by the learned Sessions Judge.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">24. Section 26 of the Raj. Children Act, 1970 reads as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Special provision in respect of pending cases - Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, all proceedings in respect of a child pending in any Court in any area on the date on which this Act comes into force in that area, shall be continued in that Court as if this Act had not been passed and if the Court finds that the child has committed an offence, it shall record such finding and, instead of passing any sentence in respect of the child, forward the child to the Children's Court which shall pass orders in respect of that child in accordance with the provisions of this Act that the child has committed the offence.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">25. A reading of the above provision clearly indicates that if proceedings in respect of a child were pending in any Court and the provisions of Act have been made applicable, concerned Court could record finding and instead of passing any sentence, forward the child to the Children Court which is empowered to pass orders, in respect of child in accordance with the provisions of the Children Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">26. The learned Sessions Judge has not acted Under Section 26 of the Act on the ground that accused Gobind Singh remained no more a child at the time of pronouncement of judgment. In our opinion, the correct interpretation of Section 26 is that even when a person ceases to be a child still he shall be continued to be taken as child for the purposes of Section 26 and shall be dealt with as per the provisions of the Children Act. The proper course, therefore, for the learned Sessions Judge was to send the accused Gobind Singh to the Children Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">27. Now the question that arises is as to what orders should be passed by this Court. In the similar circumstances, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pradeep Kumar v. State of U.P. AIR 1994 SC 104 : (1994 Cri LJ 148) sustained the conviction of the accused but quashed the sentence awarded to him and directed his release. Accused in that case were also below 16 years of age and were found guilty of the offence Under Section 302, IPC and sentenced by the learned Sessions Judge. On the ground that the accused were children at the time of commission of the offence, the Hon'ble Apex Court quashed their sentences. This Court had also occasion to deal with same situation in case of Sujana v. State of Rajasthan, (1990) 1 Rajasthan LR 601. In that case, the provisions of Children Act were made applicable in the area when the appeal was pending. This Court upheld the conviction but quashed the sentence. In the instant case appellant Gobind Singh has now attained more than 26 years of age. It is, therefore, inexpedient to forward him to the Children Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">28. Consequently, appeal of Gobind Singh is partly allowed. While maintaining his conviction Under Sections 302, 324 and 449, IPC, the sentences are set aside.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">29. The appeal of Hanuman is allowed, his conviction and sentences are set aside and he is acquitted of the charges levelled against him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">30. The appellants shall not surrender to the bail bonds.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '1997CriLJ1825',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Rajasthan',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '757399'
)
$pattern = '/\(((0[1-9]|[12][0-9]|3[01])[.](0[1-9]|1[012])[.](17|18|19|20)[0-9]{2}).*\)/'
include - APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 36
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Warning (2): Invalid argument supplied for foreach() [APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 39]
Code Context
//$shops = $shops['entities'];

foreach ($shops2 as $key => $val) {
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/meta.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Gobind Singh and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan Semantic Analysis',
	'shops' => array(
		'LAW' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Section 34',
			(int) 1 => 'the Children Act',
			(int) 2 => 'the Children Act',
			(int) 3 => 'Section 2',
			(int) 4 => 'Section 24',
			(int) 5 => 'Section 21',
			(int) 6 => 'Section 20 of the Act',
			(int) 7 => 'Section 39',
			(int) 8 => 'Section 39',
			(int) 9 => 'Section 21',
			(int) 10 => 'Section 3 of the Act',
			(int) 11 => 'Section 39',
			(int) 12 => 'the Children Act',
			(int) 13 => 'Section 26 of the Raj',
			(int) 14 => 'Section 26',
			(int) 15 => 'Section 26',
			(int) 16 => 'Section 26',
			(int) 17 => 'the Children Act'
		),
		'PERSON' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'G.L. Gupta',
			(int) 1 => 'Hanuman',
			(int) 2 => 'Raisinghnagar',
			(int) 3 => 'Baldeo Singh',
			(int) 4 => 'Baldeo Singh',
			(int) 5 => 'Jaswant Singh',
			(int) 6 => 'Billoo',
			(int) 7 => 'Billoo',
			(int) 8 => 'Billoo',
			(int) 9 => 'Baldeo Singh',
			(int) 10 => 'Billoo',
			(int) 11 => 'Rajkumar Batra',
			(int) 12 => 'P.W.',
			(int) 13 => 'Prem Singh',
			(int) 14 => 'Gangaram',
			(int) 15 => 'Devendra Singh',
			(int) 16 => 'Billoo',
			(int) 17 => 'Hanuman',
			(int) 18 => 'Billoo',
			(int) 19 => 'Gobind Singh',
			(int) 20 => 'Hanuman',
			(int) 21 => 'Hanuman',
			(int) 22 => 'sentence.4',
			(int) 23 => 'Purohit',
			(int) 24 => 'Singh',
			(int) 25 => 'Ganganagar',
			(int) 26 => 'Billoo',
			(int) 27 => 'Amar Singh',
			(int) 28 => 'Hanuman',
			(int) 29 => 'Billoo',
			(int) 30 => 'Debu',
			(int) 31 => 'Bachan Singh',
			(int) 32 => 'Billoo',
			(int) 33 => 'Banta Singh',
			(int) 34 => 'Baldeo Singh',
			(int) 35 => 'Bachan Singh',
			(int) 36 => 'Billoo',
			(int) 37 => 'Ganga Ram',
			(int) 38 => 'Ganga Ram',
			(int) 39 => 'Jaswant Singh',
			(int) 40 => 'Billoo',
			(int) 41 => 'Billoo',
			(int) 42 => 'Nazir /Ahmed',
			(int) 43 => 'Memo Ex',
			(int) 44 => 'The Recovery Memo is Ex',
			(int) 45 => 'Nazir Ahmed PW',
			(int) 46 => 'I.O.',
			(int) 47 => 'Singh',
			(int) 48 => 'Ganga Ram',
			(int) 49 => 'Baldeo Singh',
			(int) 50 => 'Billoo',
			(int) 51 => 'Athat Billoo',
			(int) 52 => 'Baldeo Singh',
			(int) 53 => 'Gobind Singh',
			(int) 54 => 'Baldeo Singh',
			(int) 55 => 'Baldeo Singh',
			(int) 56 => 'Baldeo Singh',
			(int) 57 => 'Bachan Singh',
			(int) 58 => 'Hanuman',
			(int) 59 => 'Billoo',
			(int) 60 => 'Baldeo Singh.16',
			(int) 61 => 'Ganga Ram',
			(int) 62 => 'Billoo',
			(int) 63 => 'Baldeo Singh',
			(int) 64 => 'Billoo',
			(int) 65 => 'Sant Kaur',
			(int) 66 => 'Billoo',
			(int) 67 => 'Baldeo Singh',
			(int) 68 => 'Billoo',
			(int) 69 => 'Sant Kaur',
			(int) 70 => 'Hanuman',
			(int) 71 => 'Hanuman',
			(int) 72 => 'Baldeo Singh',
			(int) 73 => 'Hanuman',
			(int) 74 => 'Baldeo Singh',
			(int) 75 => 'Inderpal',
			(int) 76 => 'Atner Singh',
			(int) 77 => 'Baldeo Singh',
			(int) 78 => 'Bachan Singh',
			(int) 79 => 'Hanuman',
			(int) 80 => 'Hanuman',
			(int) 81 => 'P.C. Gobind Singh',
			(int) 82 => 'Bikaner',
			(int) 83 => 'Bikaner',
			(int) 84 => 'Ganganagar',
			(int) 85 => 'Gobind Singh',
			(int) 86 => 'Gobind Singh',
			(int) 87 => 'Hanuman'
		),
		'NORP' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'J.1',
			(int) 1 => 'Sessions'
		),
		'PRODUCT' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Gobind Singh',
			(int) 1 => 'P.W. 1 Baldeo Singh',
			(int) 2 => 'P.W. 8 *',
			(int) 3 => 'Rakesh',
			(int) 4 => 'Cri LJ 148'
		),
		'ORG' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Sections of the Indian Penal Code',
			(int) 1 => 'IPC',
			(int) 2 => 'IPC',
			(int) 3 => 'R.I. 324',
			(int) 4 => 'IPC',
			(int) 5 => 'R.I. 323/34',
			(int) 6 => 'IPC',
			(int) 7 => 'R.I. Hanuman',
			(int) 8 => 'IPC',
			(int) 9 => 'IPC',
			(int) 10 => 'R.I. 324',
			(int) 11 => 'IPC',
			(int) 12 => 'R.I. 323',
			(int) 13 => 'IPC',
			(int) 14 => 'FIR',
			(int) 15 => 'P.W. 2',
			(int) 16 => 'P.W. 4',
			(int) 17 => 'P.W. 6',
			(int) 18 => 'P.W. 9 Amolakram',
			(int) 19 => 'P.W.',
			(int) 20 => 'P.W. 12 Chimanlal',
			(int) 21 => 'P.W.',
			(int) 22 => 'P.W.',
			(int) 23 => 'P.W.',
			(int) 24 => 'P.W.',
			(int) 25 => 'FIR',
			(int) 26 => 'IPC',
			(int) 27 => 'Hanuman',
			(int) 28 => 'Public Prosecutor',
			(int) 29 => 'Court',
			(int) 30 => 'FIR',
			(int) 31 => 'FIR',
			(int) 32 => 'FIR',
			(int) 33 => 'changed.8',
			(int) 34 => 'Gobind',
			(int) 35 => 'the FIR Ex',
			(int) 36 => 'Gobind',
			(int) 37 => 'cms',
			(int) 38 => 'P/l 7',
			(int) 39 => 'Gobind',
			(int) 40 => 'IPC',
			(int) 41 => 'Gobind',
			(int) 42 => 'Hanuman',
			(int) 43 => 'Hanuman',
			(int) 44 => 'Court',
			(int) 45 => 'FIR',
			(int) 46 => 'FIR',
			(int) 47 => 'a Children Court',
			(int) 48 => 'Churu',
			(int) 49 => 'the Children Court',
			(int) 50 => 'Court',
			(int) 51 => 'Court',
			(int) 52 => 'Court',
			(int) 53 => 'the Children's Court',
			(int) 54 => 'Court',
			(int) 55 => 'Court',
			(int) 56 => 'the Children Court',
			(int) 57 => 'the Children Act.26',
			(int) 58 => 'Court',
			(int) 59 => 'the Hon'ble Apex Court',
			(int) 60 => 'U.P. AIR 1994',
			(int) 61 => 'IPC',
			(int) 62 => 'the Hon'ble Apex Court',
			(int) 63 => 'Court',
			(int) 64 => 'IPC'
		),
		'CARDINAL' => array(
			(int) 0 => '9-12-81',
			(int) 1 => '302',
			(int) 2 => '50 449',
			(int) 3 => '302',
			(int) 4 => '34',
			(int) 5 => '50 449',
			(int) 6 => 'about 10-30 p.m.',
			(int) 7 => '27-3-80',
			(int) 8 => '12',
			(int) 9 => 'Some 8',
			(int) 10 => '8',
			(int) 11 => '10',
			(int) 12 => '13',
			(int) 13 => '14',
			(int) 14 => '16',
			(int) 15 => '18',
			(int) 16 => '19',
			(int) 17 => '6',
			(int) 18 => '6',
			(int) 19 => '8',
			(int) 20 => '6',
			(int) 21 => '3',
			(int) 22 => '2',
			(int) 23 => '10',
			(int) 24 => '15',
			(int) 25 => 'one',
			(int) 26 => '27-3-1980',
			(int) 27 => 'Two',
			(int) 28 => 'one',
			(int) 29 => 'two',
			(int) 30 => 'two',
			(int) 31 => 'one',
			(int) 32 => '1',
			(int) 33 => '10-11-81',
			(int) 34 => '1',
			(int) 35 => '302',
			(int) 36 => '324',
			(int) 37 => '449'
		),
		'DATE' => array(
			(int) 0 => '6 months',
			(int) 1 => '6 months',
			(int) 2 => '3 months',
			(int) 3 => '6 months',
			(int) 4 => '34',
			(int) 5 => '6 months',
			(int) 6 => '3 months',
			(int) 7 => 'PW 15',
			(int) 8 => '1 -4-80',
			(int) 9 => 'just three days',
			(int) 10 => 'PW 17',
			(int) 11 => 'PW 1',
			(int) 12 => 'PW 3',
			(int) 13 => 'his age as 17 years',
			(int) 14 => '17 years',
			(int) 15 => '27th March, 1980',
			(int) 16 => 'the day',
			(int) 17 => '16 years of age',
			(int) 18 => '1964',
			(int) 19 => '16 years of age',
			(int) 20 => '1970',
			(int) 21 => '1970',
			(int) 22 => 'the age of 16 years',
			(int) 23 => '16 years of age',
			(int) 24 => '1970',
			(int) 25 => '1994',
			(int) 26 => '16 years of age',
			(int) 27 => '1990',
			(int) 28 => 'more than 26 years of age'
		),
		'GPE' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Raisinghnagar',
			(int) 1 => 'Singh',
			(int) 2 => 'Singh',
			(int) 3 => 'Kumar',
			(int) 4 => 'Amritlal',
			(int) 5 => 'Singh',
			(int) 6 => 'Kanhaiyalal',
			(int) 7 => 'Momen',
			(int) 8 => 'Inderpal',
			(int) 9 => 'Ramlal',
			(int) 10 => 'Imratlal',
			(int) 11 => 'Momen',
			(int) 12 => 'Billoo.10',
			(int) 13 => 'PW',
			(int) 14 => 'Amritlal',
			(int) 15 => 'PW',
			(int) 16 => 'Baldeo',
			(int) 17 => 'Baldeo',
			(int) 18 => 'Bachan',
			(int) 19 => 'Kamlal',
			(int) 20 => 'Cr',
			(int) 21 => 'Ganganagar',
			(int) 22 => 'Ganganagar',
			(int) 23 => 'Kumar v. State',
			(int) 24 => 'Sujana v. State of',
			(int) 25 => 'Rajasthan'
		),
		'TIME' => array(
			(int) 0 => '11-30 p.m.',
			(int) 1 => 'the same night',
			(int) 2 => '11-20 p.m. i.e.'
		),
		'LOC' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Gobind Singh',
			(int) 1 => 'Gobind Singh',
			(int) 2 => 'Gobind Singh',
			(int) 3 => 'Gobind',
			(int) 4 => 'Gobind Singh',
			(int) 5 => 'Gobind Singh',
			(int) 6 => 'Gobind',
			(int) 7 => 'Gobind',
			(int) 8 => 'Gobind',
			(int) 9 => 'Gobind Singh',
			(int) 10 => 'Gobind Singh',
			(int) 11 => 'Gobind Singh',
			(int) 12 => 'Gobind Singh Under Section',
			(int) 13 => 'Gobind',
			(int) 14 => 'Gobind',
			(int) 15 => 'Gobind',
			(int) 16 => 'Gobind Singh',
			(int) 17 => 'Gobind',
			(int) 18 => 'Gobind Singh',
			(int) 19 => 'Gobind Singh',
			(int) 20 => 'Gobind Singh',
			(int) 21 => 'Gobind Singh',
			(int) 22 => 'Gobind Singh',
			(int) 23 => 'Gobind Singh'
		),
		'ORDINAL' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'First'
		),
		'WORK_OF_ART' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Child''
		),
		'EVENT' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Children Act'
		)
	),
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '757399',
			'acts' => 'Rajasthan Children Act, 1970 - Sections 2, 3, 20, 21, 24, 26 and 39; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 34, 302, 324 and 449; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 313',
			'appealno' => 'Criminal Appeal No. 26 of 1982',
			'appellant' => 'Gobind Singh and anr.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Gobind Singh and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan',
			'casenote' => ' - 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.  -  12. Apart from this, there is one more strong! 25. A reading of the above provision clearly indicates that if proceedings in respect of a child were pending in any Court and the provisions of Act have been made applicable, concerned Court could record finding and instead of passing any sentence, forward the child to the Children Court which is empowered to pass orders, in respect of child in accordance with the provisions of the Children Act.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Sujana v. State of Rajasthan;',
			'citingcases' => '302, IPC -- Life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 50 
449, IPC -- 6 months R.I. 
324, IPC -- 6 months R.I. 
323/34, IPC -- 3 months R.I. 
Hanuman :
302 read with 34, IPC -- Life imprisonment and 
             fine of Rs. 50 
449, IPC -- 6 months R.I. 
324 r/w 34, IPC -- 6 months R.I. 
323, IPC -- 3 months R.I.
',
			'counselplain' => ' D.K. Purohit, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' UCS Singhvi, Public Prosecutor',
			'court' => 'Rajasthan',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1997-01-30',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' G.L. Gupta and; S.C. Mital, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">G.L. Gupta, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Through this appeal appellants Gobind Singh and Hanuman have challenged their conviction and sentence recorded under various Sections of the Indian Penal Code by the learned Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar vide judgment dated 9-12-81 as per the following description:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Gobind Singh :302, IPC -- Life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 50 449, IPC -- 6 months R.I. 324, IPC -- 6 months R.I. 323/34, IPC -- 3 months R.I. Hanuman :302 read with 34, IPC -- Life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 50 449, IPC -- 6 months R.I. 324 r/w 34, IPC -- 6 months R.I. 323, IPC -- 3 months R.I.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The case relates to the occurrence which took place at about 10-30 p.m. on 27-3-80 at the house of Baldeo Singh in Ward No. 12 of Raisinghnagar. The prosecution case is that Baldeo Singh and his-family members including Jaswant Singh alias Billoo were having rest in their house when some persons called Billoo from outside and they started hitting the shutters. Some 8 persdns entered the house and they caught hold of Billoo and they gave beatings to him. Even knife injury was caused to him. When Baldeo Singh and his father tried to intervene, they were also beaten. Because of the injuries sustained in the occurrence Billoo died at the spot. The FIR was lodged at about 11-30 p.m. on the same night. The police registered a case. After the completion of usual investigation, the police submitted a challan against 8 persons including the present appellants.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The prosecution examined P.W. 1 Baldeo Singh, P.W. 2 Vachan Singh, P.W. 3 Sant Kaur, P.W. 4 Laxmi, P.W. 5 Kapoor Singh, P.W. 6 Charandas, P.W. 7 Avinash Kumar, P.W. 8 * Rajkumar Batra, P.W. 9 Amolakram, P.W. 10 Amritlal, P.W. 11 Hetram, P.W. 12 Chimanlal, P.W. 13 Thakar Singh, P.W. 14 Bantsingh, P.W. 15 Nazir Ahmed, P.W. 16 Prem Singh, P.W. 17 Dr. Gangaram, P.W. 18 Kanhaiyalal and P.W. 19 Devendra Singh. Accused in their statements denied the correctness of the statements of prosecution witnesses. The learned Sessions Judge found that Billoo had met homicidal death: He further found that the involvement of 6 persons named in the FIR was not proved on record. He found that only Gobind Singh and Hanuman had taken part in the occurrence and they had knife and chain with them and knife injury was caused by Gobind Singh which resulted in the death of Billoo. Considering that Gobind Singh and Hanuman had common intention, the learned Sessions Judge convicted Hanuman with the aid of Section 34 of IPC. Both the appellants have challenged their conviction and sentence.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The contention of Mr. Purohit, learned counsel for the appellants is threefold :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) All the prosecution witnesses have turned hostile and when their testimony was not believed in respect of 6 persons, the appellants could not be convicted on the basis of their testimony; (ii) If the prosecution case to any extent is believable, it is only against Gobind Singh whose name was disclosed to the family members just after the occurrence and conviction of Hanuman deserves to be quashed; (iii) Gobind Singh was child on the date of occurrence and as the Children Act had come into force before the judgment was delivered, he could not be sentenced to imprisonment and he could only be dealt with under the provisions of the Children Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, has tried to support the judgment of the trial Court. He contended that on the mere ground that the witnesses have turned hostile, the whole of the prosecution case should not be thrown away and the part of the statements of the witnesses should be believed which finds corroboration in other evidence. He, however, agreed that the provisions of the Children Act had become applicable in the district of Ganganagar before the decision of this case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. We have given the matter our thoughtful consideration.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. In the FIR, the involvement of 8 persons was disclosed. Not only this, it was also stated that all the accused had expressed their intention to kill Billoo as he was instrumental in the beating of Momen. However, during trial, all the witnesses have turned hostile and they have totally excluded 6 persons namely Amar Singh, Inderpal, Ramlal, Rakesh and Imratlal. The witnesses have not deposed that persons other than Gobind and Hanuman were having weapons in their hands. In the evidence it has also not come that the assailants had disclosed the background of the beating that Billoo had got Momen beaten by Debu. Even Bachan Singh (PW 2) has not deposed that any time any of the assailants had expressed intention to do away with the life of Billoo. It was also the version in the FIR that Banta Singh, a neighbour and the other members of the family had also seen the occurrence. However, during trial none of those witnesses have deposed that they had seen the occurrence of beating. Thus, the prosecution story as unfolded in the FIR has been substantially changed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. As already pointed out, all the eye-witnesses have turned hostile. However, it is not the legal position that when the witnesses turn hostile their whole of the statements are to be discarded. Such part of the statements of the witnesses can safely be relied which finds corroboration by other evidence.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. First, we shall try to see whether the prosecution case regarding the involvement of Gobind Singh in the case is proved on record. Both the witnesses Baldeo Singh and Bachan Singh have deposed that accused Gobind had a knife in his hand and he had caused blow to the chest of Billoo. This fact was also stated in clear terms in the FIR Ex. P/l. Thus, so far as the involvement of Gobind Singh in the occurrence is concerned, the witnesses cannot be disbelieved. It is fully established that Gobind had inflicted a knife blow on the chest of Billoo.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. The medical evidence contained in the statement of Dr. Ganga Ram (P.W. 7) lends corroboration to the direct evidence. Dr. Ganga Ram has desposed that Jaswant Singh alias Billoo had a punctured wound of 3 x 2 cms communicating with left thorasic cavity. He has deposed that this injury was caused by a sharp edged weapon. Not a single question has been directed to the medical officer regarding this part of the evidence and therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve this part of the prosecution case that Billoo had suffered knife injury. Thus, the medical evidence corroborates the direct evidence.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. A knife was recovered in consequence of the disclosure statement made by accused Gobind after his arrest. Nazir /Ahmed (PW 15) has deposed that he had arrested Gobind vide Memo Ex. P/l 7 and thereafter Gobind gave information Ex. P/30 on 1 -4-80 and in consequence of this information he took Gobind to his house from where he took out a knife having blood stains. The Recovery Memo is Ex. P/7. This recovery was made in the presence of PW. 10 Amritlal and PW. 11 Hetram. Both the witnesses have admitted that the recovery memo bears their signatures. They have turned hostile and have deposed that the recovery was not made in their presence. However, they have not deposed that the police had forced them to put their signatures on the recovery memo. The witnesses being educated would not put their signatures on the papers without seeing the transaction. The fact that they have admitted their signatures on the recovery memo and they have at the same time not deposed that the police had put pressure on them, it cannot be believed that the recovery was not made in their presence. There is absolutely no reason to disbelieve Nazir Ahmed PW. 15 I.O. who has deposed that the knife was recovered from the house of the accused in pursuance of the disclosure statement made by him. This knife was duly sealed at the time of recovery and was sent for chemical examination. The Report of the FSL Ex. P/43 reveals that the knife had blood marks over it. When the knife was examined by the serologist, it was found that the knife had human blood. The fact that the knife was recovered just three days after the occurrence from the house of the accused having blood marks, goes to show that the accused Gobind Singh had used this knife in the occurrence. Thus, the recovery of the blood stained knife lends further corroboration to the testimony of the eye-witnesses.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. Apart from this, there is one more strong! circumstance against accused Gobind Singh. Gobind Singh was examined by Dr. Ganga Ram (PW 17) on 27-3-1980 at 11-20 p.m. i.e. immediately after the occurrence. Two injuries were found on his person. Gobind Singh has admitted in his statement that the doctor had examined him. Gobind Singh must have sustained the injuries at the time of occurrence. Thus, there is further corroboration of the direct evidence.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. On the aforesaid direct and circumstantial evidence, in our opinion, the learned Sessions Judge has rightly held that accused Gobind Singh had entered into the house of Baldeo Singh and he had caused knife blow to Billoo. By the medical evidence it is established Athat Billoo had died of the injury suffered by him which was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. We find that the conviction of Gobind Singh Under Section 302, IPC does not warrant interference.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Baldeo Singh (PW 1) has also deposed that when he was intervening, Gobind Singh had inflicted knife blow to him which he sustained at his left hand finger. An injury caused by sharp edged weapon was found on the person of Baldeo Singh at the time of his medical examination. It is fully established that Gobind had caused one simple injury to Baldeo Singh by knife. He has, thus, rightly been convicted for having caused a simple injury to Baldeo Singh.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. Now, we shall consider the case against Hanuman. Both Baldeo Singh and Bachan Singh have deposed that Hanuman had a chain in his hand and he had caused injuries to Billoo and Baldeo Singh.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. A chain was also recovered at the instance of this accused. However, as the chain did not have blood stains, the learned Sessions Judge has not given any weight to that recovery.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. There are the statements of two witnesses in which the involvement of Hanuman has been disclosed. Both the witnesses have been declared hostile. As already observed a fact appearing in the statements of hostile witnesses can be believed if there is corroboration of that fact by any other evidence. The trial Court has found that recovery of chain is of no consequence. There is no other evidence which can be seen as corroborative piece of evidence to the statements of Baldeo and Bachan, the two hostile witnesses. Even Dr. Ganga Ram has not deposed that any of injuries sustained by Billoo or Baldeo Singh could be caused by a chain. That being so, it cannot be found proved that the injuries suffered by deceased Billoo and injured were inflicted by accused Hanuman.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. Apart from this, the most striking fact is that according to Sant Kaur (PW 3) who is the mother of Billoo, she was informed by Baldeo Singh that Gobind was the person who had given beatings to Billoo. This part of the statement of Sant Kaur indicates that name of Hanuman as assailant did not appear though a person immediately after the occurrence. Had Hanuman been identified, his name would have also been disclosed by Baldeo Singh to his mother. It appears that when the report Ex. P/35 was lodged by one of the named assailants and it contained the name of Hanuman, he was named as assailant in the FIR Ex. P/l. It is significant to point out that according to Baldeo Singh, he had named Inderpal, Kamlal, Rakesh, Amratlal, and Atner Singh in the FIR at the instance of the police. It is, thus, obvious that though Baldeo Singh and Bachan Singh had not identified by person other than Gobind but their names were stated in the FIR at the instance of the police. The police knew the names of certain persons because it had already received the report Fix. P/35. In our opinion, the case against accused Hanuman in the aforesaid circumstances is not free from doubt and the benefit .of doubt goes to accused Hanuman.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. Consequently, the conviction of accused Gobind is sustainable but the conviction of accused, Hanuman cannot be maintained. He is entitled to acquittal.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. Now we switch over to the last argument of the learned counsel for the appellants that Gobind Singh could not be sentenced as he was child on the date of occurrence. In his statement Under Section 313, Cr. P.C. Gobind Singh disclosed his age as 17 years. The learned Sessions Judge also estimated his age at 17 years. This statement was recorded on 1-12-1981. The occurrence had taken place on 27th March, 1980. It is thus, obvious that on the day of occurrence, Gobind was below 16 years of age. The learned Sessions Judge has observed that it was argued before him that in the school register July, 1964 was recorded as the date of birth of Gobind Singh. He has not discussed this contention in his judgment. Keeping in view the age recorded in the statement of the accused, it has to be found that accused Gobind Singh was below 16 years of age when the offence was committed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. Rajasthan Children Act, 1970 was made applicable in Ganganagar district vide notification dated 10-11-81 and a Children Court was established at Bikaner having jurisdiction over the revenue districts of Bikaner, Ganganagar and Churu. Clause (d) of Section 2 of the Rajasthan Children Act, 1970 defines 'Child'. A boy who has not attained the age of 16 years is a child as per the definition. Section 24 mandates that there shall not be joint trial of a child with a person who is not child. Section 21 lists the orders which can be passed regarding a delinquent child. A reading of this section makes it evident that a child cannot be sentenced to imprisonment. Section 20 of the Act provides that a child having been charged with an offence shall be tried in accordance with the provisions of Section 39. It is, thus, obvious that if a boy below 16 years of age is charged with an offence, he cannot be tried along with other accused who is not a child. He can only be tried in accordance with the provisions of Section 39 of the Act and then cannot be sentenced to imprisonment. He can be dealt with under the provisions of Section 21 of the Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. Section 3 of the Act provides that where an enquiry has been initiated against a child and during the course of such inquiry a child ceases to be child then also the enquiry shall be continued and orders would be passed in respect, of such person as if such person had continued to be t child.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. On a careful reading of the above provisions it has to be accepted that Gobind Singh, who was child could not be tried along with other accused persons and an enquiry Under Section 39 could be held against him by the Children Court. Of course, at the time the trial had started, the Children Act had not been made applicable in Ganganagar district but before the judgment was pronounced, the Act had come into force and therefore, sentence could not be passed against Gobind Singh by the learned Sessions Judge.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">24. Section 26 of the Raj. Children Act, 1970 reads as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Special provision in respect of pending cases - Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, all proceedings in respect of a child pending in any Court in any area on the date on which this Act comes into force in that area, shall be continued in that Court as if this Act had not been passed and if the Court finds that the child has committed an offence, it shall record such finding and, instead of passing any sentence in respect of the child, forward the child to the Children's Court which shall pass orders in respect of that child in accordance with the provisions of this Act that the child has committed the offence.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">25. A reading of the above provision clearly indicates that if proceedings in respect of a child were pending in any Court and the provisions of Act have been made applicable, concerned Court could record finding and instead of passing any sentence, forward the child to the Children Court which is empowered to pass orders, in respect of child in accordance with the provisions of the Children Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">26. The learned Sessions Judge has not acted Under Section 26 of the Act on the ground that accused Gobind Singh remained no more a child at the time of pronouncement of judgment. In our opinion, the correct interpretation of Section 26 is that even when a person ceases to be a child still he shall be continued to be taken as child for the purposes of Section 26 and shall be dealt with as per the provisions of the Children Act. The proper course, therefore, for the learned Sessions Judge was to send the accused Gobind Singh to the Children Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">27. Now the question that arises is as to what orders should be passed by this Court. In the similar circumstances, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pradeep Kumar v. State of U.P. AIR 1994 SC 104 : (1994 Cri LJ 148) sustained the conviction of the accused but quashed the sentence awarded to him and directed his release. Accused in that case were also below 16 years of age and were found guilty of the offence Under Section 302, IPC and sentenced by the learned Sessions Judge. On the ground that the accused were children at the time of commission of the offence, the Hon'ble Apex Court quashed their sentences. This Court had also occasion to deal with same situation in case of Sujana v. State of Rajasthan, (1990) 1 Rajasthan LR 601. In that case, the provisions of Children Act were made applicable in the area when the appeal was pending. This Court upheld the conviction but quashed the sentence. In the instant case appellant Gobind Singh has now attained more than 26 years of age. It is, therefore, inexpedient to forward him to the Children Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">28. Consequently, appeal of Gobind Singh is partly allowed. While maintaining his conviction Under Sections 302, 324 and 449, IPC, the sentences are set aside.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">29. The appeal of Hanuman is allowed, his conviction and sentences are set aside and he is acquitted of the charges levelled against him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">30. The appellants shall not surrender to the bail bonds.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '1997CriLJ1825',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Rajasthan',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '757399'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Gobind Singh and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan Semantic Analysis'
$shops = array(
	'LAW' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Section 34',
		(int) 1 => 'the Children Act',
		(int) 2 => 'the Children Act',
		(int) 3 => 'Section 2',
		(int) 4 => 'Section 24',
		(int) 5 => 'Section 21',
		(int) 6 => 'Section 20 of the Act',
		(int) 7 => 'Section 39',
		(int) 8 => 'Section 39',
		(int) 9 => 'Section 21',
		(int) 10 => 'Section 3 of the Act',
		(int) 11 => 'Section 39',
		(int) 12 => 'the Children Act',
		(int) 13 => 'Section 26 of the Raj',
		(int) 14 => 'Section 26',
		(int) 15 => 'Section 26',
		(int) 16 => 'Section 26',
		(int) 17 => 'the Children Act'
	),
	'PERSON' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'G.L. Gupta',
		(int) 1 => 'Hanuman',
		(int) 2 => 'Raisinghnagar',
		(int) 3 => 'Baldeo Singh',
		(int) 4 => 'Baldeo Singh',
		(int) 5 => 'Jaswant Singh',
		(int) 6 => 'Billoo',
		(int) 7 => 'Billoo',
		(int) 8 => 'Billoo',
		(int) 9 => 'Baldeo Singh',
		(int) 10 => 'Billoo',
		(int) 11 => 'Rajkumar Batra',
		(int) 12 => 'P.W.',
		(int) 13 => 'Prem Singh',
		(int) 14 => 'Gangaram',
		(int) 15 => 'Devendra Singh',
		(int) 16 => 'Billoo',
		(int) 17 => 'Hanuman',
		(int) 18 => 'Billoo',
		(int) 19 => 'Gobind Singh',
		(int) 20 => 'Hanuman',
		(int) 21 => 'Hanuman',
		(int) 22 => 'sentence.4',
		(int) 23 => 'Purohit',
		(int) 24 => 'Singh',
		(int) 25 => 'Ganganagar',
		(int) 26 => 'Billoo',
		(int) 27 => 'Amar Singh',
		(int) 28 => 'Hanuman',
		(int) 29 => 'Billoo',
		(int) 30 => 'Debu',
		(int) 31 => 'Bachan Singh',
		(int) 32 => 'Billoo',
		(int) 33 => 'Banta Singh',
		(int) 34 => 'Baldeo Singh',
		(int) 35 => 'Bachan Singh',
		(int) 36 => 'Billoo',
		(int) 37 => 'Ganga Ram',
		(int) 38 => 'Ganga Ram',
		(int) 39 => 'Jaswant Singh',
		(int) 40 => 'Billoo',
		(int) 41 => 'Billoo',
		(int) 42 => 'Nazir /Ahmed',
		(int) 43 => 'Memo Ex',
		(int) 44 => 'The Recovery Memo is Ex',
		(int) 45 => 'Nazir Ahmed PW',
		(int) 46 => 'I.O.',
		(int) 47 => 'Singh',
		(int) 48 => 'Ganga Ram',
		(int) 49 => 'Baldeo Singh',
		(int) 50 => 'Billoo',
		(int) 51 => 'Athat Billoo',
		(int) 52 => 'Baldeo Singh',
		(int) 53 => 'Gobind Singh',
		(int) 54 => 'Baldeo Singh',
		(int) 55 => 'Baldeo Singh',
		(int) 56 => 'Baldeo Singh',
		(int) 57 => 'Bachan Singh',
		(int) 58 => 'Hanuman',
		(int) 59 => 'Billoo',
		(int) 60 => 'Baldeo Singh.16',
		(int) 61 => 'Ganga Ram',
		(int) 62 => 'Billoo',
		(int) 63 => 'Baldeo Singh',
		(int) 64 => 'Billoo',
		(int) 65 => 'Sant Kaur',
		(int) 66 => 'Billoo',
		(int) 67 => 'Baldeo Singh',
		(int) 68 => 'Billoo',
		(int) 69 => 'Sant Kaur',
		(int) 70 => 'Hanuman',
		(int) 71 => 'Hanuman',
		(int) 72 => 'Baldeo Singh',
		(int) 73 => 'Hanuman',
		(int) 74 => 'Baldeo Singh',
		(int) 75 => 'Inderpal',
		(int) 76 => 'Atner Singh',
		(int) 77 => 'Baldeo Singh',
		(int) 78 => 'Bachan Singh',
		(int) 79 => 'Hanuman',
		(int) 80 => 'Hanuman',
		(int) 81 => 'P.C. Gobind Singh',
		(int) 82 => 'Bikaner',
		(int) 83 => 'Bikaner',
		(int) 84 => 'Ganganagar',
		(int) 85 => 'Gobind Singh',
		(int) 86 => 'Gobind Singh',
		(int) 87 => 'Hanuman'
	),
	'NORP' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'J.1',
		(int) 1 => 'Sessions'
	),
	'PRODUCT' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Gobind Singh',
		(int) 1 => 'P.W. 1 Baldeo Singh',
		(int) 2 => 'P.W. 8 *',
		(int) 3 => 'Rakesh',
		(int) 4 => 'Cri LJ 148'
	),
	'ORG' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Sections of the Indian Penal Code',
		(int) 1 => 'IPC',
		(int) 2 => 'IPC',
		(int) 3 => 'R.I. 324',
		(int) 4 => 'IPC',
		(int) 5 => 'R.I. 323/34',
		(int) 6 => 'IPC',
		(int) 7 => 'R.I. Hanuman',
		(int) 8 => 'IPC',
		(int) 9 => 'IPC',
		(int) 10 => 'R.I. 324',
		(int) 11 => 'IPC',
		(int) 12 => 'R.I. 323',
		(int) 13 => 'IPC',
		(int) 14 => 'FIR',
		(int) 15 => 'P.W. 2',
		(int) 16 => 'P.W. 4',
		(int) 17 => 'P.W. 6',
		(int) 18 => 'P.W. 9 Amolakram',
		(int) 19 => 'P.W.',
		(int) 20 => 'P.W. 12 Chimanlal',
		(int) 21 => 'P.W.',
		(int) 22 => 'P.W.',
		(int) 23 => 'P.W.',
		(int) 24 => 'P.W.',
		(int) 25 => 'FIR',
		(int) 26 => 'IPC',
		(int) 27 => 'Hanuman',
		(int) 28 => 'Public Prosecutor',
		(int) 29 => 'Court',
		(int) 30 => 'FIR',
		(int) 31 => 'FIR',
		(int) 32 => 'FIR',
		(int) 33 => 'changed.8',
		(int) 34 => 'Gobind',
		(int) 35 => 'the FIR Ex',
		(int) 36 => 'Gobind',
		(int) 37 => 'cms',
		(int) 38 => 'P/l 7',
		(int) 39 => 'Gobind',
		(int) 40 => 'IPC',
		(int) 41 => 'Gobind',
		(int) 42 => 'Hanuman',
		(int) 43 => 'Hanuman',
		(int) 44 => 'Court',
		(int) 45 => 'FIR',
		(int) 46 => 'FIR',
		(int) 47 => 'a Children Court',
		(int) 48 => 'Churu',
		(int) 49 => 'the Children Court',
		(int) 50 => 'Court',
		(int) 51 => 'Court',
		(int) 52 => 'Court',
		(int) 53 => 'the Children's Court',
		(int) 54 => 'Court',
		(int) 55 => 'Court',
		(int) 56 => 'the Children Court',
		(int) 57 => 'the Children Act.26',
		(int) 58 => 'Court',
		(int) 59 => 'the Hon'ble Apex Court',
		(int) 60 => 'U.P. AIR 1994',
		(int) 61 => 'IPC',
		(int) 62 => 'the Hon'ble Apex Court',
		(int) 63 => 'Court',
		(int) 64 => 'IPC'
	),
	'CARDINAL' => array(
		(int) 0 => '9-12-81',
		(int) 1 => '302',
		(int) 2 => '50 449',
		(int) 3 => '302',
		(int) 4 => '34',
		(int) 5 => '50 449',
		(int) 6 => 'about 10-30 p.m.',
		(int) 7 => '27-3-80',
		(int) 8 => '12',
		(int) 9 => 'Some 8',
		(int) 10 => '8',
		(int) 11 => '10',
		(int) 12 => '13',
		(int) 13 => '14',
		(int) 14 => '16',
		(int) 15 => '18',
		(int) 16 => '19',
		(int) 17 => '6',
		(int) 18 => '6',
		(int) 19 => '8',
		(int) 20 => '6',
		(int) 21 => '3',
		(int) 22 => '2',
		(int) 23 => '10',
		(int) 24 => '15',
		(int) 25 => 'one',
		(int) 26 => '27-3-1980',
		(int) 27 => 'Two',
		(int) 28 => 'one',
		(int) 29 => 'two',
		(int) 30 => 'two',
		(int) 31 => 'one',
		(int) 32 => '1',
		(int) 33 => '10-11-81',
		(int) 34 => '1',
		(int) 35 => '302',
		(int) 36 => '324',
		(int) 37 => '449'
	),
	'DATE' => array(
		(int) 0 => '6 months',
		(int) 1 => '6 months',
		(int) 2 => '3 months',
		(int) 3 => '6 months',
		(int) 4 => '34',
		(int) 5 => '6 months',
		(int) 6 => '3 months',
		(int) 7 => 'PW 15',
		(int) 8 => '1 -4-80',
		(int) 9 => 'just three days',
		(int) 10 => 'PW 17',
		(int) 11 => 'PW 1',
		(int) 12 => 'PW 3',
		(int) 13 => 'his age as 17 years',
		(int) 14 => '17 years',
		(int) 15 => '27th March, 1980',
		(int) 16 => 'the day',
		(int) 17 => '16 years of age',
		(int) 18 => '1964',
		(int) 19 => '16 years of age',
		(int) 20 => '1970',
		(int) 21 => '1970',
		(int) 22 => 'the age of 16 years',
		(int) 23 => '16 years of age',
		(int) 24 => '1970',
		(int) 25 => '1994',
		(int) 26 => '16 years of age',
		(int) 27 => '1990',
		(int) 28 => 'more than 26 years of age'
	),
	'GPE' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Raisinghnagar',
		(int) 1 => 'Singh',
		(int) 2 => 'Singh',
		(int) 3 => 'Kumar',
		(int) 4 => 'Amritlal',
		(int) 5 => 'Singh',
		(int) 6 => 'Kanhaiyalal',
		(int) 7 => 'Momen',
		(int) 8 => 'Inderpal',
		(int) 9 => 'Ramlal',
		(int) 10 => 'Imratlal',
		(int) 11 => 'Momen',
		(int) 12 => 'Billoo.10',
		(int) 13 => 'PW',
		(int) 14 => 'Amritlal',
		(int) 15 => 'PW',
		(int) 16 => 'Baldeo',
		(int) 17 => 'Baldeo',
		(int) 18 => 'Bachan',
		(int) 19 => 'Kamlal',
		(int) 20 => 'Cr',
		(int) 21 => 'Ganganagar',
		(int) 22 => 'Ganganagar',
		(int) 23 => 'Kumar v. State',
		(int) 24 => 'Sujana v. State of',
		(int) 25 => 'Rajasthan'
	),
	'TIME' => array(
		(int) 0 => '11-30 p.m.',
		(int) 1 => 'the same night',
		(int) 2 => '11-20 p.m. i.e.'
	),
	'LOC' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Gobind Singh',
		(int) 1 => 'Gobind Singh',
		(int) 2 => 'Gobind Singh',
		(int) 3 => 'Gobind',
		(int) 4 => 'Gobind Singh',
		(int) 5 => 'Gobind Singh',
		(int) 6 => 'Gobind',
		(int) 7 => 'Gobind',
		(int) 8 => 'Gobind',
		(int) 9 => 'Gobind Singh',
		(int) 10 => 'Gobind Singh',
		(int) 11 => 'Gobind Singh',
		(int) 12 => 'Gobind Singh Under Section',
		(int) 13 => 'Gobind',
		(int) 14 => 'Gobind',
		(int) 15 => 'Gobind',
		(int) 16 => 'Gobind Singh',
		(int) 17 => 'Gobind',
		(int) 18 => 'Gobind Singh',
		(int) 19 => 'Gobind Singh',
		(int) 20 => 'Gobind Singh',
		(int) 21 => 'Gobind Singh',
		(int) 22 => 'Gobind Singh',
		(int) 23 => 'Gobind Singh'
	),
	'ORDINAL' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'First'
	),
	'WORK_OF_ART' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Child''
	),
	'EVENT' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Children Act'
	)
)
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '757399',
		'acts' => 'Rajasthan Children Act, 1970 - Sections 2, 3, 20, 21, 24, 26 and 39; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 34, 302, 324 and 449; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 313',
		'appealno' => 'Criminal Appeal No. 26 of 1982',
		'appellant' => 'Gobind Singh and anr.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Gobind Singh and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan',
		'casenote' => ' - 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.  -  12. Apart from this, there is one more strong! 25. A reading of the above provision clearly indicates that if proceedings in respect of a child were pending in any Court and the provisions of Act have been made applicable, concerned Court could record finding and instead of passing any sentence, forward the child to the Children Court which is empowered to pass orders, in respect of child in accordance with the provisions of the Children Act.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Sujana v. State of Rajasthan;',
		'citingcases' => '302, IPC -- Life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 50 
449, IPC -- 6 months R.I. 
324, IPC -- 6 months R.I. 
323/34, IPC -- 3 months R.I. 
Hanuman :
302 read with 34, IPC -- Life imprisonment and 
             fine of Rs. 50 
449, IPC -- 6 months R.I. 
324 r/w 34, IPC -- 6 months R.I. 
323, IPC -- 3 months R.I.
',
		'counselplain' => ' D.K. Purohit, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' UCS Singhvi, Public Prosecutor',
		'court' => 'Rajasthan',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1997-01-30',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' G.L. Gupta and; S.C. Mital, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">G.L. Gupta, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Through this appeal appellants Gobind Singh and Hanuman have challenged their conviction and sentence recorded under various Sections of the Indian Penal Code by the learned Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar vide judgment dated 9-12-81 as per the following description:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Gobind Singh :302, IPC -- Life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 50 449, IPC -- 6 months R.I. 324, IPC -- 6 months R.I. 323/34, IPC -- 3 months R.I. Hanuman :302 read with 34, IPC -- Life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 50 449, IPC -- 6 months R.I. 324 r/w 34, IPC -- 6 months R.I. 323, IPC -- 3 months R.I.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The case relates to the occurrence which took place at about 10-30 p.m. on 27-3-80 at the house of Baldeo Singh in Ward No. 12 of Raisinghnagar. The prosecution case is that Baldeo Singh and his-family members including Jaswant Singh alias Billoo were having rest in their house when some persons called Billoo from outside and they started hitting the shutters. Some 8 persdns entered the house and they caught hold of Billoo and they gave beatings to him. Even knife injury was caused to him. When Baldeo Singh and his father tried to intervene, they were also beaten. Because of the injuries sustained in the occurrence Billoo died at the spot. The FIR was lodged at about 11-30 p.m. on the same night. The police registered a case. After the completion of usual investigation, the police submitted a challan against 8 persons including the present appellants.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The prosecution examined P.W. 1 Baldeo Singh, P.W. 2 Vachan Singh, P.W. 3 Sant Kaur, P.W. 4 Laxmi, P.W. 5 Kapoor Singh, P.W. 6 Charandas, P.W. 7 Avinash Kumar, P.W. 8 * Rajkumar Batra, P.W. 9 Amolakram, P.W. 10 Amritlal, P.W. 11 Hetram, P.W. 12 Chimanlal, P.W. 13 Thakar Singh, P.W. 14 Bantsingh, P.W. 15 Nazir Ahmed, P.W. 16 Prem Singh, P.W. 17 Dr. Gangaram, P.W. 18 Kanhaiyalal and P.W. 19 Devendra Singh. Accused in their statements denied the correctness of the statements of prosecution witnesses. The learned Sessions Judge found that Billoo had met homicidal death: He further found that the involvement of 6 persons named in the FIR was not proved on record. He found that only Gobind Singh and Hanuman had taken part in the occurrence and they had knife and chain with them and knife injury was caused by Gobind Singh which resulted in the death of Billoo. Considering that Gobind Singh and Hanuman had common intention, the learned Sessions Judge convicted Hanuman with the aid of Section 34 of IPC. Both the appellants have challenged their conviction and sentence.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The contention of Mr. Purohit, learned counsel for the appellants is threefold :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) All the prosecution witnesses have turned hostile and when their testimony was not believed in respect of 6 persons, the appellants could not be convicted on the basis of their testimony; (ii) If the prosecution case to any extent is believable, it is only against Gobind Singh whose name was disclosed to the family members just after the occurrence and conviction of Hanuman deserves to be quashed; (iii) Gobind Singh was child on the date of occurrence and as the Children Act had come into force before the judgment was delivered, he could not be sentenced to imprisonment and he could only be dealt with under the provisions of the Children Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, has tried to support the judgment of the trial Court. He contended that on the mere ground that the witnesses have turned hostile, the whole of the prosecution case should not be thrown away and the part of the statements of the witnesses should be believed which finds corroboration in other evidence. He, however, agreed that the provisions of the Children Act had become applicable in the district of Ganganagar before the decision of this case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. We have given the matter our thoughtful consideration.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. In the FIR, the involvement of 8 persons was disclosed. Not only this, it was also stated that all the accused had expressed their intention to kill Billoo as he was instrumental in the beating of Momen. However, during trial, all the witnesses have turned hostile and they have totally excluded 6 persons namely Amar Singh, Inderpal, Ramlal, Rakesh and Imratlal. The witnesses have not deposed that persons other than Gobind and Hanuman were having weapons in their hands. In the evidence it has also not come that the assailants had disclosed the background of the beating that Billoo had got Momen beaten by Debu. Even Bachan Singh (PW 2) has not deposed that any time any of the assailants had expressed intention to do away with the life of Billoo. It was also the version in the FIR that Banta Singh, a neighbour and the other members of the family had also seen the occurrence. However, during trial none of those witnesses have deposed that they had seen the occurrence of beating. Thus, the prosecution story as unfolded in the FIR has been substantially changed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. As already pointed out, all the eye-witnesses have turned hostile. However, it is not the legal position that when the witnesses turn hostile their whole of the statements are to be discarded. Such part of the statements of the witnesses can safely be relied which finds corroboration by other evidence.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. First, we shall try to see whether the prosecution case regarding the involvement of Gobind Singh in the case is proved on record. Both the witnesses Baldeo Singh and Bachan Singh have deposed that accused Gobind had a knife in his hand and he had caused blow to the chest of Billoo. This fact was also stated in clear terms in the FIR Ex. P/l. Thus, so far as the involvement of Gobind Singh in the occurrence is concerned, the witnesses cannot be disbelieved. It is fully established that Gobind had inflicted a knife blow on the chest of Billoo.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. The medical evidence contained in the statement of Dr. Ganga Ram (P.W. 7) lends corroboration to the direct evidence. Dr. Ganga Ram has desposed that Jaswant Singh alias Billoo had a punctured wound of 3 x 2 cms communicating with left thorasic cavity. He has deposed that this injury was caused by a sharp edged weapon. Not a single question has been directed to the medical officer regarding this part of the evidence and therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve this part of the prosecution case that Billoo had suffered knife injury. Thus, the medical evidence corroborates the direct evidence.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. A knife was recovered in consequence of the disclosure statement made by accused Gobind after his arrest. Nazir /Ahmed (PW 15) has deposed that he had arrested Gobind vide Memo Ex. P/l 7 and thereafter Gobind gave information Ex. P/30 on 1 -4-80 and in consequence of this information he took Gobind to his house from where he took out a knife having blood stains. The Recovery Memo is Ex. P/7. This recovery was made in the presence of PW. 10 Amritlal and PW. 11 Hetram. Both the witnesses have admitted that the recovery memo bears their signatures. They have turned hostile and have deposed that the recovery was not made in their presence. However, they have not deposed that the police had forced them to put their signatures on the recovery memo. The witnesses being educated would not put their signatures on the papers without seeing the transaction. The fact that they have admitted their signatures on the recovery memo and they have at the same time not deposed that the police had put pressure on them, it cannot be believed that the recovery was not made in their presence. There is absolutely no reason to disbelieve Nazir Ahmed PW. 15 I.O. who has deposed that the knife was recovered from the house of the accused in pursuance of the disclosure statement made by him. This knife was duly sealed at the time of recovery and was sent for chemical examination. The Report of the FSL Ex. P/43 reveals that the knife had blood marks over it. When the knife was examined by the serologist, it was found that the knife had human blood. The fact that the knife was recovered just three days after the occurrence from the house of the accused having blood marks, goes to show that the accused Gobind Singh had used this knife in the occurrence. Thus, the recovery of the blood stained knife lends further corroboration to the testimony of the eye-witnesses.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. Apart from this, there is one more strong! circumstance against accused Gobind Singh. Gobind Singh was examined by Dr. Ganga Ram (PW 17) on 27-3-1980 at 11-20 p.m. i.e. immediately after the occurrence. Two injuries were found on his person. Gobind Singh has admitted in his statement that the doctor had examined him. Gobind Singh must have sustained the injuries at the time of occurrence. Thus, there is further corroboration of the direct evidence.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. On the aforesaid direct and circumstantial evidence, in our opinion, the learned Sessions Judge has rightly held that accused Gobind Singh had entered into the house of Baldeo Singh and he had caused knife blow to Billoo. By the medical evidence it is established Athat Billoo had died of the injury suffered by him which was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. We find that the conviction of Gobind Singh Under Section 302, IPC does not warrant interference.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Baldeo Singh (PW 1) has also deposed that when he was intervening, Gobind Singh had inflicted knife blow to him which he sustained at his left hand finger. An injury caused by sharp edged weapon was found on the person of Baldeo Singh at the time of his medical examination. It is fully established that Gobind had caused one simple injury to Baldeo Singh by knife. He has, thus, rightly been convicted for having caused a simple injury to Baldeo Singh.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. Now, we shall consider the case against Hanuman. Both Baldeo Singh and Bachan Singh have deposed that Hanuman had a chain in his hand and he had caused injuries to Billoo and Baldeo Singh.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. A chain was also recovered at the instance of this accused. However, as the chain did not have blood stains, the learned Sessions Judge has not given any weight to that recovery.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. There are the statements of two witnesses in which the involvement of Hanuman has been disclosed. Both the witnesses have been declared hostile. As already observed a fact appearing in the statements of hostile witnesses can be believed if there is corroboration of that fact by any other evidence. The trial Court has found that recovery of chain is of no consequence. There is no other evidence which can be seen as corroborative piece of evidence to the statements of Baldeo and Bachan, the two hostile witnesses. Even Dr. Ganga Ram has not deposed that any of injuries sustained by Billoo or Baldeo Singh could be caused by a chain. That being so, it cannot be found proved that the injuries suffered by deceased Billoo and injured were inflicted by accused Hanuman.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. Apart from this, the most striking fact is that according to Sant Kaur (PW 3) who is the mother of Billoo, she was informed by Baldeo Singh that Gobind was the person who had given beatings to Billoo. This part of the statement of Sant Kaur indicates that name of Hanuman as assailant did not appear though a person immediately after the occurrence. Had Hanuman been identified, his name would have also been disclosed by Baldeo Singh to his mother. It appears that when the report Ex. P/35 was lodged by one of the named assailants and it contained the name of Hanuman, he was named as assailant in the FIR Ex. P/l. It is significant to point out that according to Baldeo Singh, he had named Inderpal, Kamlal, Rakesh, Amratlal, and Atner Singh in the FIR at the instance of the police. It is, thus, obvious that though Baldeo Singh and Bachan Singh had not identified by person other than Gobind but their names were stated in the FIR at the instance of the police. The police knew the names of certain persons because it had already received the report Fix. P/35. In our opinion, the case against accused Hanuman in the aforesaid circumstances is not free from doubt and the benefit .of doubt goes to accused Hanuman.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. Consequently, the conviction of accused Gobind is sustainable but the conviction of accused, Hanuman cannot be maintained. He is entitled to acquittal.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. Now we switch over to the last argument of the learned counsel for the appellants that Gobind Singh could not be sentenced as he was child on the date of occurrence. In his statement Under Section 313, Cr. P.C. Gobind Singh disclosed his age as 17 years. The learned Sessions Judge also estimated his age at 17 years. This statement was recorded on 1-12-1981. The occurrence had taken place on 27th March, 1980. It is thus, obvious that on the day of occurrence, Gobind was below 16 years of age. The learned Sessions Judge has observed that it was argued before him that in the school register July, 1964 was recorded as the date of birth of Gobind Singh. He has not discussed this contention in his judgment. Keeping in view the age recorded in the statement of the accused, it has to be found that accused Gobind Singh was below 16 years of age when the offence was committed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. Rajasthan Children Act, 1970 was made applicable in Ganganagar district vide notification dated 10-11-81 and a Children Court was established at Bikaner having jurisdiction over the revenue districts of Bikaner, Ganganagar and Churu. Clause (d) of Section 2 of the Rajasthan Children Act, 1970 defines 'Child'. A boy who has not attained the age of 16 years is a child as per the definition. Section 24 mandates that there shall not be joint trial of a child with a person who is not child. Section 21 lists the orders which can be passed regarding a delinquent child. A reading of this section makes it evident that a child cannot be sentenced to imprisonment. Section 20 of the Act provides that a child having been charged with an offence shall be tried in accordance with the provisions of Section 39. It is, thus, obvious that if a boy below 16 years of age is charged with an offence, he cannot be tried along with other accused who is not a child. He can only be tried in accordance with the provisions of Section 39 of the Act and then cannot be sentenced to imprisonment. He can be dealt with under the provisions of Section 21 of the Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. Section 3 of the Act provides that where an enquiry has been initiated against a child and during the course of such inquiry a child ceases to be child then also the enquiry shall be continued and orders would be passed in respect, of such person as if such person had continued to be t child.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. On a careful reading of the above provisions it has to be accepted that Gobind Singh, who was child could not be tried along with other accused persons and an enquiry Under Section 39 could be held against him by the Children Court. Of course, at the time the trial had started, the Children Act had not been made applicable in Ganganagar district but before the judgment was pronounced, the Act had come into force and therefore, sentence could not be passed against Gobind Singh by the learned Sessions Judge.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">24. Section 26 of the Raj. Children Act, 1970 reads as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Special provision in respect of pending cases - Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, all proceedings in respect of a child pending in any Court in any area on the date on which this Act comes into force in that area, shall be continued in that Court as if this Act had not been passed and if the Court finds that the child has committed an offence, it shall record such finding and, instead of passing any sentence in respect of the child, forward the child to the Children's Court which shall pass orders in respect of that child in accordance with the provisions of this Act that the child has committed the offence.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">25. A reading of the above provision clearly indicates that if proceedings in respect of a child were pending in any Court and the provisions of Act have been made applicable, concerned Court could record finding and instead of passing any sentence, forward the child to the Children Court which is empowered to pass orders, in respect of child in accordance with the provisions of the Children Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">26. The learned Sessions Judge has not acted Under Section 26 of the Act on the ground that accused Gobind Singh remained no more a child at the time of pronouncement of judgment. In our opinion, the correct interpretation of Section 26 is that even when a person ceases to be a child still he shall be continued to be taken as child for the purposes of Section 26 and shall be dealt with as per the provisions of the Children Act. The proper course, therefore, for the learned Sessions Judge was to send the accused Gobind Singh to the Children Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">27. Now the question that arises is as to what orders should be passed by this Court. In the similar circumstances, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pradeep Kumar v. State of U.P. AIR 1994 SC 104 : (1994 Cri LJ 148) sustained the conviction of the accused but quashed the sentence awarded to him and directed his release. Accused in that case were also below 16 years of age and were found guilty of the offence Under Section 302, IPC and sentenced by the learned Sessions Judge. On the ground that the accused were children at the time of commission of the offence, the Hon'ble Apex Court quashed their sentences. This Court had also occasion to deal with same situation in case of Sujana v. State of Rajasthan, (1990) 1 Rajasthan LR 601. In that case, the provisions of Children Act were made applicable in the area when the appeal was pending. This Court upheld the conviction but quashed the sentence. In the instant case appellant Gobind Singh has now attained more than 26 years of age. It is, therefore, inexpedient to forward him to the Children Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">28. Consequently, appeal of Gobind Singh is partly allowed. While maintaining his conviction Under Sections 302, 324 and 449, IPC, the sentences are set aside.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">29. The appeal of Hanuman is allowed, his conviction and sentences are set aside and he is acquitted of the charges levelled against him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">30. The appellants shall not surrender to the bail bonds.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '1997CriLJ1825',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Rajasthan',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '757399'
)
$pattern = '/\(((0[1-9]|[12][0-9]|3[01])[.](0[1-9]|1[012])[.](17|18|19|20)[0-9]{2}).*\)/'
$shops2 = null
include - APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 39
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

LAW: Section 34, the Children Act, the Children Act, Section 2, Section 24, Section 21, Section 20 of the Act, Section 39, Section 39, Section 21, Section 3 of the Act, Section 39, the Children Act, Section 26 of the Raj, Section 26, Section 26, Section 26, the Children Act

PERSON: G.L. Gupta, Hanuman, Raisinghnagar, Baldeo Singh, Baldeo Singh, Jaswant Singh, Billoo, Billoo, Billoo, Baldeo Singh, Billoo, Rajkumar Batra, P.W., Prem Singh, Gangaram, Devendra Singh, Billoo, Hanuman, Billoo, Gobind Singh, Hanuman, Hanuman, sentence.4, Purohit, Singh, Ganganagar, Billoo, Amar Singh, Hanuman, Billoo, Debu, Bachan Singh, Billoo, Banta Singh, Baldeo Singh, Bachan Singh, Billoo, Ganga Ram, Ganga Ram, Jaswant Singh, Billoo, Billoo, Nazir /Ahmed, Memo Ex, The Recovery Memo is Ex, Nazir Ahmed PW, I.O., Singh, Ganga Ram, Baldeo Singh, Billoo, Athat Billoo, Baldeo Singh, Gobind Singh, Baldeo Singh, Baldeo Singh, Baldeo Singh, Bachan Singh, Hanuman, Billoo, Baldeo Singh.16, Ganga Ram, Billoo, Baldeo Singh, Billoo, Sant Kaur, Billoo, Baldeo Singh, Billoo, Sant Kaur, Hanuman, Hanuman, Baldeo Singh, Hanuman, Baldeo Singh, Inderpal, Atner Singh, Baldeo Singh, Bachan Singh, Hanuman, Hanuman, P.C. Gobind Singh, Bikaner, Bikaner, Ganganagar, Gobind Singh, Gobind Singh, Hanuman

NORP: J.1, Sessions

PRODUCT: Gobind Singh, P.W. 1 Baldeo Singh, P.W. 8 *, Rakesh, Cri LJ 148

ORG: Sections of the Indian Penal Code, IPC, IPC, R.I. 324, IPC, R.I. 323/34, IPC, R.I. Hanuman, IPC, IPC, R.I. 324, IPC, R.I. 323, IPC, FIR, P.W. 2, P.W. 4, P.W. 6, P.W. 9 Amolakram, P.W., P.W. 12 Chimanlal, P.W., P.W., P.W., P.W., FIR, IPC, Hanuman, Public Prosecutor, Court, FIR, FIR, FIR, changed.8, Gobind, the FIR Ex, Gobind, cms, P/l 7, Gobind, IPC, Gobind, Hanuman, Hanuman, Court, FIR, FIR, a Children Court, Churu, the Children Court, Court, Court, Court, the Children's Court, Court, Court, the Children Court, the Children Act.26, Court, the Hon'ble Apex Court, U.P. AIR 1994, IPC, the Hon'ble Apex Court, Court, IPC

CARDINAL: 9-12-81, 302, 50 449, 302, 34, 50 449, about 10-30 p.m., 27-3-80, 12, Some 8, 8, 10, 13, 14, 16, 18, 19, 6, 6, 8, 6, 3, 2, 10, 15, one, 27-3-1980, Two, one, two, two, one, 1, 10-11-81, 1, 302, 324, 449

DATE: 6 months, 6 months, 3 months, 6 months, 34, 6 months, 3 months, PW 15, 1 -4-80, just three days, PW 17, PW 1, PW 3, his age as 17 years, 17 years, 27th March, 1980, the day, 16 years of age, 1964, 16 years of age, 1970, 1970, the age of 16 years, 16 years of age, 1970, 1994, 16 years of age, 1990, more than 26 years of age

GPE: Raisinghnagar, Singh, Singh, Kumar, Amritlal, Singh, Kanhaiyalal, Momen, Inderpal, Ramlal, Imratlal, Momen, Billoo.10, PW, Amritlal, PW, Baldeo, Baldeo, Bachan, Kamlal, Cr, Ganganagar, Ganganagar, Kumar v. State, Sujana v. State of, Rajasthan

TIME: 11-30 p.m., the same night, 11-20 p.m. i.e.

LOC: Gobind Singh, Gobind Singh, Gobind Singh, Gobind, Gobind Singh, Gobind Singh, Gobind, Gobind, Gobind, Gobind Singh, Gobind Singh, Gobind Singh, Gobind Singh Under Section, Gobind, Gobind, Gobind, Gobind Singh, Gobind, Gobind Singh, Gobind Singh, Gobind Singh, Gobind Singh, Gobind Singh, Gobind Singh

ORDINAL: First

WORK_OF_ART: Child'

EVENT: Children Act