Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 1990CriLJ1698
ORDERRajeshwar Singh, J. 1. A case under Section 302, I.P.C. has been committed to the Court of Session. There some accused raised objection that they were juveniles under The Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 and they should not be tried by Sessions Court. The Sessions Court rejected that application. So they have approached this Court through an application in revision.2. The definition of 'juvenile' is given in Section 2(h) of the Act. According to this definition 'juvenile' means a boy who has hot attained the age of 16 years or a girl who has not attained the age of 18 years. The definition does not say that this age is to be seen on the date of occurrence. Section 20 deals with inquiry by Juvenile Court against juvenile offenders. It says that where a juvenile accused of an offence appears or is produced before a Juvenile Court, it shall make an inquiry. Thus it appears that a Juvenile Court proceeds when a juvenile appears or is produced before it. It means that the person produced sho...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : 1992CriLJ1051
ORDERS.S. Rathor, J.1. Vide this order two petitions Crl. Revision No. 361 of 1991 and Crl. Misc. No. 6043-M of 1991, which are correlated, would be disposed of together. Petitioner Daljit Singh alone has filed these two petitions. Hereinafter the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 would be referred to as the Act 'and Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 as' Code.2. The factual position is that an occurrence is alleged to have taken place on 19-10-1990 resulting in lodging of an F.I.R. No. 141 dated 20-10-1990 for offences under Sections 302/ 324/34, IPC with P.S. Mohali, Tehsil Kharar, District Ropar. The petitioner along with two other co-accused was involved in the alleged heinous crime of murder of Raj Kumar alias Raju. As the ordinary law takes its course, the petitioner along with his co-accused was arrested in the case. Presumbly the accused persons after their arrest were produced before the Ilaqua Magistrate concerned. After completion of the investigation and filing of the challan papers...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : (2004)136PLR497
Satish Kumar Mittal, J.1. This petition has been filed by juvenile Manmohan Singh, who is now confined in Observation Home, Shimla Puri Ludhiana for setting aside the order dated 26.9.2003 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate/Juvenile Court, Ludhiana vide which the application of the petitioner for release him on bail was declined and the order dated 11.10.2003 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana vide which appeal against the said order was dismissed. The Courts below declined the bail to the petitioner on the ground that there is apprehension that the release of the petitioner on bail would expose him to moral and physical danger as no elderly person is available to look after him.2. As per the prosecution case, the petitioner along his brother, armed with Kirpans, Kulwant Singh, armed with gandasi and his mother Gurjit Kaur, armed with thapi, alleged to have caused injuries to deceased Kuldeep Singh son of Tarlok Singh.3. The case of the petitioner is that at the time of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 2008(103)DRJ27
Reva Khetrapal, J.1. Two young boys, the appellants Amit Kumar and Ravinder Kumar, with another young boy named Suman are alleged to have murdered Noor Alam @ Shibu, aged 5 years in the night intervening 9th/10th November, 1999. The trial of accused Suman is being conduced by the Juvenile Court while the appellants Amit Kumar and Ravinder Kumar were tried by a learned Additional Sessions Judge and on the basis of circumstantial evidence adduced by the prosecution, have suffered life sentence for the offences under Sections 302/364/34 IPC. Both the appellants are further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years besides fine for the offence punishable under Section 201 Indian Penal Code.2. It is proposed to dispose of both the appeals by this common order in view of the fact that identical questions of fact and law arise in both the appeals.3. The appeals though preferred for setting aside the conviction, during the pendency of the appeals Mr. R.S. Mishra, counsel for t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 2003CriLJ3830
ORDERMalay Kumar Basu, J.1. This Revisional Application is directed against the order dt. 19-9-1998 passed by the ld. Additional Sessions Judge, 11th Court, Alipur in S. T. No. 2 (8) of 1998 (Sessions Case No. (2) of 1998) which arose out of Gariahat P.S. case No. 176 dt. 20th July, 1996 Under Section 302/34 of the IPC whereunder ld. Judge allowed an application under Section 307 of the Cr. P.C. filed by one Panchami Palta, die mother of the O.P. No. 1, Khokan Palta who was one of the accused persons of the said case.2. The relevant facts may, be summarised as follows. The petitioner Raj Ambarish Sen along with the O.P. No. 1 was arrested in connection with the abovementioned sessions case by police on 17th November, 1997 and subsequently on completion of investigation police submitted a charge-sheet against him under Section 302/34 IPC before the Ld. SDJM, Alipur who took cognizance of the offence and after observing the formalities committed the accused Raj Ambarish, to the Court of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.763 OF 200.Jitendra Singh @ Babboo Singh & Anr. ... Appellants Versus State of U.P. ... Respondent JUDGMENT Madan B. Lokur, J.1. Three principal issues arise for consideration in this appeal. The first is whether the appellant was a juvenile or a child as defined by Section 2(k) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 on the date of occurrence of the offence he was charged with. On a consideration of the Report called for by this Court on this question, the issue must be answered in the affirmative.2. The second is whether the conviction of the appellant can be sustained on merits and, if so, the sentence to be awarded to the appellant. In our opinion the conviction of the appellant must be upheld and on the quantum of sentence, he ought to be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of Section 20 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
$~ *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Crl. Rev. No.443/2009 & Crl.M.A.No.3071/2010 Date of Decision:12. h August, 2014 DELHI HIGH COURT LEGAL SERVICES COMMITTEE ..Petitioner Through : Mr. V. Madhukar, Mr. Paritosh Anil, Mr. Jayendra, Mr. V. Bhatt, Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Sr. Adv. appointed as Amicus Curiae VERSUS UOI & ANR. Through: ....Respondents Mr. Manoj Ohri, APP for the State. Mr. Amit Chadha, Adv. for applicant. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE GITA MITTAL GITA MITTAL, J It is highly deplorable and heart-rending to note that many poverty stricken children and girls in the prime of youth are taken to 'flesh market' and forcibly pushed into the 'flesh trade' which is being carried on in utter violation of all cannons of morality, decency and dignity of humankind. There cannot be two opinionsindeed there is nonethat this obnoxious and abominable crime Crl Rev.No.443/2009 & Crl.M.A.No.3071/2010 1 committed with all kinds of unthinkable vulgarity should be eradicated at all levels by dras...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision:1. t August, 2014 + DEATH SENTENCE REFERENCE No.5/2010 STATE Through ..... Petitioner Ms.Swati Goswami, Adv. for Mr.Dayan Krishnan, ASC with Inspector Rajveer Singh, PS S.P. Badli Versus JAGTAR & ORS. Through ..... Respondents Mr. Sidharth Aggarwal, Adv. with Adit S. Pujari, Adv. & Mr.Rahul Kumar, Adv. Crl.A. No.979/2008 AMAR BHADUR THAPAS S/O GYAN BHADUR THAPA .... Petitioner Through Mr.Sumer K. Sethi, Adv. Versus STATE Through ..... Respondents Ms.Ritu Gauba, APP S.I. Amit Rathee, PS Model Town. WITH Death Sentence Ref.No.5/2010, Crl.A.Nos.979/2008, 1087/2010 & 1301/2010 1 + Crl.A. No.1087/2010 RAVINDER ..... Petitioner Mr.Sumer K. Sethi, Adv. Through Versus STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) ..... Respondent Through Ms.Ritu Gauba, APP AND + Crl.A. No.1301/2010 NOOR JAHAN ALIAS HASEENA & ORS. ..... Petitioner Through Mr.Vivek Sood & Mr.Vishwanath Pratap Singh, Advs. Versus STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) ..... Respondent Through ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision:1. t August, 2014 + DEATH SENTENCE REFERENCE No.5/2010 STATE Through ..... Petitioner Ms.Swati Goswami, Adv. for Mr.Dayan Krishnan, ASC with Inspector Rajveer Singh, PS S.P. Badli Versus JAGTAR & ORS. Through ..... Respondents Mr. Sidharth Aggarwal, Adv. with Adit S. Pujari, Adv. & Mr.Rahul Kumar, Adv. Crl.A. No.979/2008 AMAR BHADUR THAPAS S/O GYAN BHADUR THAPA .... Petitioner Through Mr.Sumer K. Sethi, Adv. Versus STATE Through ..... Respondents Ms.Ritu Gauba, APP S.I. Amit Rathee, PS Model Town. WITH Death Sentence Ref.No.5/2010, Crl.A.Nos.979/2008, 1087/2010 & 1301/2010 1 + Crl.A. No.1087/2010 RAVINDER ..... Petitioner Mr.Sumer K. Sethi, Adv. Through Versus STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) ..... Respondent Through Ms.Ritu Gauba, APP AND + Crl.A. No.1301/2010 NOOR JAHAN ALIAS HASEENA & ORS. ..... Petitioner Through Mr.Vivek Sood & Mr.Vishwanath Pratap Singh, Advs. Versus STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) ..... Respondent Through ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.A. 1221/2013, Judgment reserved on 10th February, 2015 Judgment pronounced on 12th February, 2015 % UDAY KUMAR YADAV Through : ..... Appellant Mr.Ajai Kumar, Adv. versus STATE (NCT OF DELHI) Through : ..... Respondent Mr.Firoz Khan Ghazi, APP for the Stae along with SI Mohinder, P.S. Narela. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL G.S.SISTANI, J.CRL.M.A. 14484/2013.1. The appellant has filed the present appeal assailing the judgment dated 7.11.2012 and order on sentence dated 17.11.2012 by which the appellant was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for the offence under Section 363 IPC for a period of seven years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default thereof further undergo Simple Imprisonment for a further period of one month. The appellant was also sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 376 (2) (f) IPC with the directions that he shall no...
Tag this Judgment!