CRL.REV.P./360/2011 of SWARAN SINGH Vs STATE

IN THE HIGHCOURTOF DELHIAT NEW DELHI

+CRL.REV.P.360/2011

SWARAN SINGHPetitioner

Through:Mr. O.N. Sharma, Advocate.versus

STATE

Through:None.

CORAM:HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA

Respondent

ORDER

%19.12.2011

1.By the presentpetition,the Petitionerseeks settingaside of thejudgmentdated 5"^ July, 2011 by the learnedAddl.'SessionsJudge and orderdated 10^'^ January, 2011 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board. Petitionerfurther seeks directionsfor constitutionof medical board for determinationof his age.

2.Learned counsel for the Petitioner contends that the view taken by thelearned Appellate Court is manifestly wrong and based on conjectures andsurmises.Learnedcourtsbelowhaveignoredthelegalprinciples,misinterpreting the beneficial legislation. I.earned court ought to have giventhe opportunity to the Petitioner to prove his juvenility which could be done

CrI.Rev.P. 360/2011

Page 1 of 5

only by constituting medical board and determining his age. Learnedcounsel further contends that proper procedure has not been followed and anenquiry under the provisions of the Act wherever the plea of juvenility isclaimed is to be conducted.It is stated that the Petitionerhad no documentsto be relied upon to prove his age. Thus, the impugned order are illegal andperverse and liable to be set aside.

3.I have heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and perused the record.4.Briefly, the facts giving rise to the present petition are that FIR No.482/82 under Sections 302/307/451/324/34IPG and Section 27 of Arms Actwas registered at PS Ashok Vihar. Vide order dated 3August, 1994 alongwith his father and brother, the Petitioner was convicted and sentenced tolife imprisonment for offences punishable under Section 302/34 IPG andwas awarded sentence of five years imprisonment and fine of Rs.1000/-under Section 307/34 IPG.The Petitioner herein filed criminal appealagainst the said judgment and order which was partly allowed and hisconviction under Section 302/34 IPG was set aside but the convictionunderSection 307/34 IPG and the order awarding him sentence of five years ofimprisonmentand fine ofRs.1000/-remainedunaltered. On 9^^ April,2010an application was filed before this Gourt under Section 7(A) of JuvenileCrI.Rev.P.360/2011Page 2 of 5

Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2000(in short the Act).ThisCourt dismissed the application with liberty to the Petitioner to approachthe Trial Court. The Petitioner herein approached the Sessions Court whichapplication was dismissed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge videorder dated 22"^ November,2010 with an observationthat in view of Rule98 and Rule 12 the Petitioner may approach the Juvenile Justice Board.5.The Petitioner claimed the plea of juvenility before the JuvenileJustice Board contending that the same could not be raised at any stagebefore becauseof absenceofadvice. Vide order dated 10^*^proper January,2001, the learned Principal Magistrate after adducing the material placedbefore it, dismissedthe applicationobservingthat the claim of juvenilityofthe Petitioner is false and on the basis of the documents submitted by himi.e. the Voter LD. Card his age was between 19-20 years on the date ofcommission of offence. Aggrieved by the order of the Principal Magistratethe Petitioner filed an appeal before the Addl. Sessions Judge which is alsoimpugned in the present petition.6.It may be noted that during the trial of the main criminal case, both,the Petitioner and his brother were being represented by the same advocatebut only his brother claimed the benefit of juvenility and was also grantedCrI.Rev.P.360/2011Page 3 of 5

the same.As per the record, the Petitioner did not claim the benefit ofjuvenilityduring the entire trial proceedingsand in his statement underSection 313 Cr.P.C. stated his age to be 25 years.During the trial, thePetitioner submitted his Voter I.D. Card which records his age to be 45 yearsas on r' 2008 and same the of the Petitionerwas January, as per the agearound 19 years in the year 1982 when the offence was committed.

7.Ifindno meritin thecontentionof thelearnedcounselforthePetitioner that the Petitioner was not having any proper legal guidance toraise the issue of juvenilityat the proper stage as he was throughoutrepresented by an advocate who had claimed the benefit of juvenility for hisbrother.The legal proposition in regard to the accused claiming benefit ofjuvenility at any stage is clear and the same can be made even during or posttrial. There is no doubt that the Juvenile Justice Act is beneficial legislationand must be construed liberally.The very purpose of this beneficiallegislation is to grant opportunity to the accused persons who were not in aposition to claim at the appropriate stage but at the same time it is to betaken care that the benefit granted under the Act is not to be misused.

8.The Petitionerin the present case himself has stated that he wasaround 25 years of age at the time of commissionof offenceand also

CrI.Rev.P.360/2011

produced his Voter I.D. Card while claiming juvenility before the JuvenileJustice Board.Thus, it cannot be said that he was either unaware or had nodocuments with him to support his claim for which an inquiry andconstitution of medical board was essential to determine his age.Constitutionof medical board is essentialin case where the accused hasno other means to prove his claim of juvenility which is not the case in thepresent petition.

9.The judgment passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge deals withall the relevant aspects which arise in the present petition and is well-reasoned detailed order which requires no interference by this Court. I findno illegalitymuch less any perversityin the impugnedorders. The petitionbeing devoid of any merit is dismissed.

DECEMBER 19, 2011'dk'

MUKTA GUPTA, J.

Cri.Rev.P.360/2011