NARENDRA Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 26/04/1996 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jashpur Nagar, District Raigarh, in Sessions Trial No. 13/96 whereby the appellants have been convicted under Section 342 of IPC and have been awarded sentence of RI for 5 months to each, under Section 366 of IPC, appellants have been awarded sentence of RI for 5 years to each and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo SI for 3 months to each and under Section 376(2)(g) of IPC, appellants have been awarded sentence of RI for 10 years and fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo SI for one year to each. In this matter on an application filed by the appellants, on 9/05/2013 this court has directed for enquiry to be made under Section 7(A) whereby claim of juvenility was raised before the court. The application was filed under Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. On the basis of such order, an enquiry was made by the District and Sessions Judge, Jashpur. The learned Sessions Judge, Jashpur made a detailed enquiry and called for the original record of appellants Narendra Gupta and Sanjay Kumar Gupta. In order to ascertain the age, the original school register were called for i.e. of Government Higher Secondary, School, Mahadevdand and Boys J.E. Middle School, Musgutri. The said certificate purports the date of birth of Narendra Gupta to be that of 30/11/1978 and that of Sanjay Kumar Gupta to be 6/10/1978. Such certificates were examined and detail enquiry was made. After enquiry, court came to a conclusion that on the date of incident i.e. 4/10/1995, Narendra Gupta was 16 years, 10 months and 5 days while Sanjay Kumar Gupta was 16 years, 11 months and 29 days. The learned court below while making enquiry also made enquiry with respect to the school register which was produced by the Principal of the School and the Head Master of the school respectively.

(2.) The learned counsel for the appellants do not challenge the finding of conviction and submits that the finding of committing of offence is correct by the learned court below. The State counsel also agrees to the same.

(3.) Learned Advocate for the appellants placed his reliance in the matter of Dharambir Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, 2010 5 SCC 344, wherein in para. 7 the Hon'ble Court has held as under:--