Court : Chennai
Reported in : 1996CriLJ3800
Janarthanam, J.1. In respect of a transaction that took place on 1-5-1986 at about 6.30 a.m., at the coconut tope situate at Thirumoolanagar, belonging to one Thyagarajan, one Dhasan was done to death, giving rise to the registration of a case in Crime No. 77/86 on the file of Anjugramam Police Station for the alleged offences under Ss. 147, 148, 323, 324, 326 and 302 read with S. 109, IPC and culminating, on investigation, in the filing of a final report under S. 173(2), Cri.P.C. against the following eight accused, namely, Kosal (accused 1), Mannar alias Rajamannar (accused 2), Durai alias Rajagopal (accused 3), Thiraviyam (accused 4), Kannan (accused 5), Bhaskar (accused 6), Ayyakutti alias Kurus Mariyan (accused 7) and Thomas (accused 8) before the Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Nagercoil (Taluk) for the alleged offences under Ss. 147, 148 and 302 read with S. 149, IPC. 2. The final report so filed had been taken as PRC No. 24 of 1986, as against the adult accused (accused 1 to ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
Mandhata Singh, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the State.2. This revision application has been filed against the judgment dated 06-10-2009 passed in Cr.AppealNo.66 of 2009/09 of 2009 by the Additional Sessions Judge-F.T.C.-VII, Sitamarhi, by which he has dismissed the appeal affirming the order dated 19-08-2009 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Sitamarhi in Riga P.S.Case No. 38/2009, G.R. No. 579/2009, Tr. No. 35/2009 in which petitioner Murari Yadav was declared major.2. Petitioner is accused in a case in which it is alleged that he along with others entered into the victim's house, committed rape upon her and set her on fire. A claim was made while it was the stage of commencement of trial that petitioner was juvenile. In enquiry set up by the Juvenile Justice Board parties are allowed to lead evidence that has been done also. Apart from oral evidence documentary evidence also produced. Petitioner was decided major by the Juvenile Justice Board, which was chall...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
1. This is a criminal revision under section 53 of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of children) Act 2000 (in short 'the Juvenile Act') against the judgement and order dated 22.7.2010 passed by Mr. H.K. Dubey, the Sessions Judge, Basti in Criminal (Juvenile) Appeal No. 56 of 2010 (Ravi Gaur alias Ravinder Gaur vs. State of U.P.), whereby the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the revisionist's appeal and maintained the order dated 15.4.2010 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Basti, on the bail prayer of the revisionist in the case crime no. 57/2008, under section 302 IPC, Police Station Kotwali, District Basti. 2. Heard Mr. Jagdish Prasad Tripathi and Ms. Urmila Tripathi for the revisionist and the learned AGA for the respondent no.1 and perused the record. 3. With the consent of the counsel for the parties, the present revision is being disposed of at the stage of admission. 4. It is not in dispute that the revisionist has already been declared as a juvenile by the Juvenil...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
233 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRR No.1586 of 2013 (O&M) Date of decision: March 25, 2014 Gurwinder Singh alias Ginda ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH Present: Mr.D.S.Pheruman, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Jaspreet Singh, Asstt. Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent-State. **** INDERJIT SINGH, J. Petitioner Gurwinder Singh alias Ginda has filed this revision petition against State of Punjab under Section 401 Cr.P.C.challenging the order dated 15.02.2013 passed by learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Tarn Taran declaring the petitioner as major and the bail of the petitioner was cancelled and petitioner was taken into custody. The brief facts as stated in the petition are that FIR in the present case was registered on 16.07.2010. The petitioner being juvenile filed an application for bail along with Satnam Singh @ Satta, in which the petitioner produced the matriculation certi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Sikkim
Jain, CJ (Oral).1. Learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, West District at Gyalshing vide her letter/Memo No. 544/2014/CJJM (W) dated 26th May, 2014, has referred this matter to this Court stating therein that she has decided the Juvenile Justice Board Case No. 06 of 2012 vide judgment dated 29th June, 2013, sitting alone, whereas as per proviso to Section 5 (3) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (for short, the Act of 2000 ), any matter of Juvenile Justice Board has to be decided finally by at least two members of the Board including the Principal Magistrate. She has further mentioned that the said judgment is contrary to proviso of Section 5(3) of the Act of 2000. However, the Board does not have any power to recall such an order, therefore, this Court should pass an appropriate order. The aforesaid letter was ordered to be registered as Crl. Revision Petition.2. The Revision Petition was admitted and notice was issued to the respondent...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1990(2)WLN482
K. Bhatnagar, J.1. Appellant, Kikar Singh was tried for the charge Under Section 302, IPC by the Additional Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar. Vide Judgment dated 17.4.84 he was held guilty for the charge and sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo two year's rigorous imprisonment. Kikar Singh, feeling aggrieved by his conviction and sentence, has preferred this appeal in this Court.2. Succintly narrated, the prosecution case is that on 22.5.83 at 2.15 p.m. Nagaur Singh (PW 1) lodged an oral report at police station Anoopgarh to the effect that agricultural land in 16 BUD, Murraba No. 241/420 was purchased by his father from Budh Singh and was in the cultivating possession of his family. Adjecent to that field there was the field of Kikar Singh. Ten or fifteen days prior to the incident, Kikar Singh threw the earth from the 'Doli' (the strip of land dividing the two fields) in the field of complainant which led to hot altercatio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ?3. Whether the judgment should be reported in Digest ? ORDER.1. By way of this application, the appellant Sanjeev @ Vishal, who is confined in Central Jail No. 2, Tihar, New Delhi and who has been produced before us by virtue of production warrant, claims the benefit of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act'). It is also prayed that the sentence dated 09.09.2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge be quashed and the appellant be released as he was a juvenile at the time of the commission of the offence.2. The date of the offence in the present case is 16.04.2000. The appellant's date of birth is said to be less than 18 years of age on the date of the incident. If this is correct, he would be entitled to the benefit of the said Act particularly in view of the provisions of Section 7A read with ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Uttaranchal
1. This criminal appeal, preferred under section 374(2) of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred as Cr.P.C.), is directed against the judgment and order dated 22/23.07.1999 passed by the Sessions Judge, US Nagar, Rudrapur in Sessions Trial No.4 of 1998, State v. Ravindra Singh Bisht @ Dheeru @ Dhirendra Singh & others, whereby the learned Sessions Judge has convicted the appellants/accused for the offence punishable u/s 304 of The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter to be referred as I.P.C.) and sentenced each of them to ten years' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.3,000/- each. Each of the appellant/accused was further convicted u/s 354 IPC and was sentenced to one year's R.I. each; each of them was further convicted u/s 147 IPC and was sentenced to one year's R.I. each; each of them was further convicted u/s 323/149 IPC and was sentenced to six months' R.I. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. It was further directed that in case of def...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
The appellant in Crl.A.(MD)No.173 of 2011 is the first accused, the appellant in Crl.A.(MD)No.435 of 2010 is the second accused, and the appellant in Crl.A.(MD)No.407 of 2010 is the third accused, in S.C. No.41 of 2009, on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Karur. 2.By judgment dated 16.09.2010, the Trial Court has convicted the first accused under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo further R.I. for two months. The accused 2 and 3, have been convicted under Sections 377 and 302 r/w 34 IPC. For the offence under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC, the accused 2 and 3 have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default to undergo further R.I. for two months. For offence under Section 377 IPC, the accused 2 and 3 have been sentenced to undergo 5 years R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default to undergo further R.I. for two months. The sentenc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
1. The Petitioner is a 12 year old victim in case FIR No. 04/2009 under Section 376/342 IPC registered at PS Neb Sarai. On registration of FIR, an inquiry for age determination of Respondent No.2 was conducted and Respondent No.2 was found to be juvenile at the time of committing the alleged offence. Thus, an enquiry was conducted by the Juvenile Justice Board-II. The proceedings in the inquiry qua Respondent No.2 culminated on 8th July, 2011, however the Petitioner is not aware of its final outcome. The Petitioner was orally informed that Respondent No.2 was found to have committed the offence and was directed to be placed in the special home for the period he had already undergone, which, according to the Petitioner, is around 2 to 3 months. The Petitioner filed an application before the Juvenile Justice Board seeking certified copy of the order dated 8th July, 2011 so that she could exercise her right of appeal/ revision against the said order. Learned Juvenile Justice Board vide im...
Tag this Judgment!