SUSEN KUMAR RAY Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) The facts, in brief, as projected by the petitioner are that four accused persons namely Sapan, Somen Rai, Suben and Sushen, i.e. the present petitioner, were tried in Sessions Trial No. 961/1992 before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Jagdalpur, for the offences punishable 302 and 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The other co-accused persons were convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jagdalpur by order dated 14.10.1996 and were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life under section 302 of the IPC and rigorous imprisonment for seven years under section 307/34 of the IPC. However, the petitioner was acquitted of the charges. Against the judgment and order of conviction dated 14.10.1996, the co-accused persons filed an appeal being Criminal Appeal No. 1981/1996 before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur and the State Government also filed an appeal against the order of acquittal passed in favour of the petitioner, being Criminal Appeal No. 2461/1997. Both these appeals were heard together and finally decided on 11.02.2013. The learned Division Bench, having regard to the fact that at the time of the commission of the offence, the accused persons were in their young age, the conviction under section 302/34 of the IPC was set aside and the co-accused persons alongwith the petitioner were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years for the offence punishable under section 304 (Part-II) and five years rigorous imprisonment for the offence punishable under section 307 of the IPC. A compensation to the tune of Rs. 20,000/- was also awarded to the injured persons in equal proportion. Thus, the appeal filed by the State against the order of acquittal of the petitioner, i.e. Criminal Appeal No. 2461/1997, was allowed partly.

(3.) After passing of the order by the learned Division Bench of this Court, it appears that the petitioner made an application before the Chairman (Chief Magistrate) Juvenile Justice Board, Dantewada, on 22.05.2013. The Juvenile Justice Board, by order dated 22.06.2013 (Annexure P/3) held that the petitioner was 16 years 5 months and 24 days old at the time of incident i.e. on 01.09.1991 and as such, he was juvenile. The petitioner has preferred the instant petition seeking the following reliefs: