Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2000CriLJ3059
ORDERS.K. Agarwal, J.1. This revision has been preferred by the revisionist/applicant, Milap Singh, against an order refusing to extend him the benefit of the Juvenile Justice Act. The order by which this benefit was denied is dated 27-3-1998.2. While admitting the revision, this Court has stayed further proceedings in Sessions Trial No. 251 if 1990 (State v. Ram Beti) pending in the Court of II Additional Sessions Judge, Mainpuri.3. I have heard the revision. No serious arguments have been advanced, so far as merit is concerned. The only point raised before me seriously is that of availability of the benefit of Juvenile Justice Act to the applicant on the ground that at the time of occurrence he was under 15 years of age. In support of this plea that the applicant is a juvenile, the evidence on record is that of medical examination report which is Ext. C-1 proved by Dr. M.L. Verma, Chief Medical Officer. Mainpuri, dated 16-8-1997. According to the medical opinion of the above said doc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 1975CriLJ500
J.S. Verma, J.1. This appeal raises the question whether, on construction of the various provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Bal Adhiniyam, 1970 (No. 15 of 1970)(hereinafter referred to as the Bal Adhiniyam), a 'child' within the meaning of that expression as defined in the Act when charged with the offence of murder has also to be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of that Act.2. The appellant Rupsingh, admittedly, aged 14 years when tried for the offence of murder was charged with having committed the murder of Mst. Balgi wife of Nakala of village Jhauli, tahsil Aliraipur, district Jhabua on 14-4-1970. The challan was filed in the Court of the Magistrate First Class, Alirajpur for the said offence against the appellant on 15-5-1970,who after holding an inquiry in accordance with Section 207A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 by the order dated 3-9-1970 passed under Sec-213 of the Code committed the appellant for trial by the Court of Session. The first Additional Session...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 1975CriLJ713
P.K. Tare, C.J.1. This order shall govern the disposal of both the cases mentioned above. These are references under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 1898, made bv the Fourth Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur, and the Fifth Additional Sessions Judge. Jabalpur. respectively recommendinp that the committal orders, dated 30-3-1973 and 21-4-1973, passed bv the Juvenile Court. Jabalpur, in Criminal Case No. 120 of 1972 and Criminal Case No. 54 of 1973, respectively, committing the respective accused to stand his trial in the Sessions Court for an alleged offence under Section 376, I. P. C, be quashed on the ground that in view of the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Bal Adhiniyam. 1970. a Juvenile Court alone has the jurisdiction to hold an inquiry and consequently, the Sessions Court has no jurisdiction to proceed with the trial of the respective accused.2. In the present case, the two accused, Ramesh and Shivram alias Munna, who are boys aged about 14 and 11 vears respecti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 2002(2)MPHT564
ORDERS.L. Kochar, J. 1. The State has filed this revision against the order dated 24-9-2001 passed by the Sessions Judge, Jhabua in Sessions Trial No. 158/2001 returning the charge-sheet to the Public Prosecutor for filing the same before the Juvenile Court, Jhabua and discharged the non-applicants from his Court. 2. Learned Dy. Advocate General Shri Desai has assailed the impugned order on the ground that the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 2000) came into force from 1-4-2001 whereas the incident had taken place on 14-2-2001. Therefore, the present case can not be dealt with under the old Act ie., The Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1986). He also submitted that the accused/non-applicants have not filed any positive material to establish that they were below 18 years of age on the date of the incident. 3. In counter to this, Shri Jaisingh appearing for the non-applicants submitted tha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : I(1996)DMC318
Swatanter Kumar, J.1. This is a petition under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code where the petitioner has prayed that he be released on bail in an offence under Sections 304-B/34 of Indian Penal Code. The necessary facts are that Sukhraj Kaur was married in March, 1991, to Devinder Singh son of Iqbal Singh. Devinder Singh is brother of the minor Karamdeep Kaur petitioner herein. In the FIR, allegations are made against all the accused including the petitioner. The llegations relate to treating the deceased with cruelty and demand of dowry etc. It is stated that the deceased was killed and information of her death came to the notice of the complainants on 28.4.95. A case under Sections 304-B/34 of Indian Penal Code in FIR No. 22 dated 28.4.1995 was registered in the Police Station, City, Gurdaspur, against all the accused including the petitioner. The petitioner was taken into custody.2. The petitioner filed an application for bail before the Juvenile Justice Bench of the Distr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008(2)ALD(Cri)17; 2008(3)ALT(Cri)242; 2008(56)BLJR2033; 2008CriLJ3190; RLW2008(2)SC1785; 2008(8)SCALE608; 2008(2)LC739(SC); 2008(3)AICLR557; 2008(4)Supreme1; 2008AIRSCW4259
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Leave granted.2. How to determine the age of a juvenile in delinquency within the meaning of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (for short 'the Act') is in question in this appeal which arises out of a judgment and order dated 11th September, 2001 passed by a learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court in Criminal Revision No. 156 of 2007 whereby and whereunder an order dated 20th January, 2007 passed by a learned Additional Session Judge, Delhi, was set aside. 3. Appellant before us is the first informant, the father of a boy, Parkash Chadha @ Sunny who was kidnapped for ransom and later on murdered. He was aged about 20 years. He was found missing after he had gone out with his friends on 18th January, 2003. A missing report was lodged on the said date. On or about 19th January, 2003, Respondent No. 1 was suspected of involvement in the said crime by the police. He, on the basis of the investigation carried out for the said purpose char...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 2003CriLJ3342; RLW2003(4)Raj2552; 2003(3)WLC655
Joshi, J. 1. The learned Juvenile Court convicted the revisionist-petitioner for offences under Section 302 and 364 I.P.C. on 5th September, 1988 and referred the matter to the State Government Under Section 22(i) of the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 (in short 'the Act' hereinafter). On receipt of the letter dated 24th March, 1989 from the State Government, the Juvenile Court ordered on 19th June, 1989 to detain the petitioner for a period of 5 years in Juvenile Reformatory, Udaipur attached to the Central Jail, Udaipur.2. As per finding of the Juvenile Court, the accused was of 15 years, 3 months and 10 days of age on the date of occurrence i.e. 4.112.11981. As per certificate of School, the date of birth of the revisionist-petitioner was 24.8.1966 and the appeal Under Section 37 of the Act was preferred before the Court of Sessions on 30th May, 1989 against the above order, who transferred the same to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Jodhpur (Special Judge, E.C. Act), which was r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1. Leave granted.2. The appellant stands convicted under section 376 read with section 511 of the Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for five years and a fine ofRs.2000/- with the direction that in default of payment of fine he would undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of two months.3. According to the prosecution case, on February 2, 1998, at about 10.00 A.M., the prosecutrix had gone out to the fields for relieving herself. There she was accosted by the appellant. Seeing him take off his pants, the prosecutrix tried to run away but the appellant caught hold of her and pulled her down to the ground. The prosecutrix freed herself by biting on the appellant's hand and ran towards her house. The appellant chased her and again caught hold of her. He pulled her down and grabbed her breasts and attempted to commit rape on her. She resisted him and in their struggle some mustard crops grown in the field were also damaged. On alarm raised by the prosecutrix, her ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
GYAN SUDHA MISRA, J.1. The Judgment and order dated 19.08.2010 passed by the High Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur in SBCRR No.597 of 2009 is under challenge in this appeal at the instance of the appellant Om Prakash who is a hapless father of an innocent girl of 13 B= years who was subjected to rape by the alleged accused-Respondent No.2 Vijay Kumar @ Bhanwroo who has been allowed to avail the benefit of protection under Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2000, although the courts below could not record a finding that he, in fact, was a juvenile since he had not attained the age of 18 years on the date of incident. Hence this Special Leave Petition in which leave has been granted after condoning the delay.2. Thus the questions inter alia which require consideration in this appeal are:-(i) whether the respondent/accused herein who is alleged to have committed an offence of rape under Section 376 IPC and other allied sections along with a co-accused who already stands c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
P.C. Phukan, J. 1. This is an appeal directed against the judgment and order dated 8-12-1987 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Agartala convicting the accused appellants under Section 302/34, IPC and sentencing them there under to imprisonment for life in Sessions Case No. 21(W.T./A) of 1983.2. The prosecution case in brief is that on 19-8-1983 in the morning at Madhya Pratapgarh under East Agartala under West Tripura Police Station Pinu alias Uttam Chakraborty (since deceased) was returning home on a cycle from the side of Goal Bazar along Madhya Pratapgarh road. When he reached the front of the roadside house of Lalit Mohan Ghose at about 11 a.m., Lalit and his three sons Ranjan, Sankar and Sajal alias Nanu Ghose armed with Daos and Ballam attacked him. He fell down from the bicycle and started running towards the south. Chased by Lalit and his sons, he fell down on the paddy field of Lalit's brother Dhiro Ghose where they struck him with Daos and Ballam...
Tag this Judgment!