JAGTAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - Originally, there were four accused charged for the murder of the victim Kulwant Singh. The present appellant was one of the four accused. He was charged for the offence under S. 302, Penal Code [the 'IPC'] as well as under S. 307 read with S. 34, IPC. The rest three accused were charged for the offence under S. 302 read with S. 34 as well as under, S. 307 read with S. 34, IPC. Since the victim was only Kulwant Singh for whose death the accused were charged under S. 302, IPC we have not understood the charge framed by the learned Sessions Judge under S. 307, IPC also in connection with the same murder. Nor have we followed the conviction of the present appellant under S. 307 read with S. 34 in addition to his conviction under S. 302 of IPC. It further appears that the High Court has not noticed this anomaly in the convictions and sentences both under S. 302 and S. 307 read with S. 34, of the present appellant.

(2.) It appears that the point with regard to the minority of the appellant was raised at the outset of the trial. Dr. Uppal (PW 1), who had conducted the post mortem examination of the deceased's body, had examined the accused with reference to his age before entering the witness box. In the witness box, he was examined-in-chief with reference to the age of the accused where he deposed that the accused was between 18 and 20 years of age. He has also given his reasons for this opinion of his. It does not appear that he was cross-examined on the said point on behalf of the defence. Thereafter, the accused in his statement under S. 313 of Criminal P. C. took the defence that at the time of the incident, he was 15 years of age. The learned Sessions Judge negatived the said contention and going by the opinion of the doctor held that the accused was of 18 to 20 years of age. It may also be mentioned in this connection that at that stage no school leaving certificate or birth certificate was produced and the matter rested entirely on the statement of the accused under S. 313, Cr. P. C. on the one hand and the expert evidence of the doctor (PW 1) who as stated earlier, was not even cross-examined on the said point, on the other.

(3.) In this state of affairs with regard to the age of the accused on the date of the incident, we are satisfied that neither the Sessions Court nor the High Court was wrong in holding that the appellant was not below the age of 16 years on the date of the incident. We may in this connection refer to the fact that his birth certificate has been scrupulously kept away from the Court by the appellant. We, therefore, see no substance in the contention that the appellant was below the age of 16 years on the date of the incident.