KALLU AND ORS. Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The two Appellants stand convicted under Sections 302/34 and 324/34 I.P.C. by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur in Sessions Trial No. 437 of 1997 dated 13.11.1998. The Appellants who are brothers along with their third brother Anil Kumar are stated to have assaulted the deceased Lalit Mohan Dey and PW 5 Subrat Dey on 14.7.1997 in the fields. Anil Kumar has been acquitted giving him the benefit of doubt. The FIR, Exhibit P-l was lodged the same morning by PW 1, Ram Kumar. Appellant No. 1 is alleged to have assaulted with Tangia on the head while the other two are alleged to have assaulted with lathis. The MLC of Lalit Mohan Dey, Exhibit P-21 was conducted by PW 14 on 14.7.1997 and revealed injuries on the left and right parietal region, lacerated wound on the dorsal surface of right palm with diffuse swelling. The deceased expired on 15.7.1997. The inquest report was marked Exhibit P10. The postmortem report Exhibit P-13, conducted by PW-11, Dr. Vijay Kumar Verma revealed fracture of right parietal and temporal bone, fracture of left parietal bone. Detah* was opined to have been caused due to brain injury. The MLC of PW-5, Subrat Dey, revealed cut wound on right parietal region, cut wound on the right year and cut wound on the right parieto temporal region. On the confession of Appellant No. 2, a lathi was seized along with his shirt and trousers. The FSL report Exhibit P-35 confirmed presence of blood on the same. The Tangi recovered on confession of Appellant No. 1 and his lungi according to the FSL report did not confirm presence of blood.

(2.) On 12.5.1999 an objection was raised in appeal on behalf of Appellant No. 2 that he was a juvenile below 16 years of age on 14.7.1997 when the occurrence took place. The age of juvenility under the law as it then existed was 16 years. It was subsequently amended by the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 as 18 years. Section 2(1) was added on 22.8.2006 providing that the juvenile in conflict with law means a juvenile who is alleged to have committed an offence and has not completed eighteen year of age as on the date of commission of offence meaning thereby that the objection could be taken at any stage, including in appeal.

(3.) Pursuant to the order dated 15.5.1999, an enquiry was directed regarding the age of Appellant No. 2. By a report dated 9.7.1999, Appellant No. 2 was held to be above 16 years of age but below 17. The report attained finality and was questioned by none.