SURENDER KUMAR ALIAS HAPPY Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals, which are interlinked being directed against a judgment of learned Additional District Judge, Delhi, in Sessions Case No. 226/96, are disposed of by the common judgment. At an age when the appellants and their co-accused were to push pen in pursuit of education, they are alleged to have pushed a knife to the chest of another youngster of their age, causing his homicidal death. A sad case of juvenile delinquency. It is not easy to precisely define juvenile delinquency. Major hurdle in the way of providing a definite definition is one which is normally encountered while defining crime in general i.e. the choice between the social and legal definitions.

(2.) Juvenile delinquency is not uncommon or peculiar to any particular age. It is, in almost every age regarded as contemporary problem. Like adult criminal behaviour it has always existed in some form or other. As observed by the author of "Criminology Problems & Perspectives", this problem has a two dimensional basis. Firstly, the violations of any code of conduct, whether for adults or for young persons, is inevitable. Secondly the definitions of juvenile delinquency as deviant child behaviour itself depends upon the norms laid down by the society, in other words by the elders, Clash of values due to generation gap is bound to occur. Edwin H. Stulker in his article "Misconception about Juveline Delinquency" published in Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology and Police Science, 1956 (Volume 46) has made reference to two quotations which succinctly sum up the continuing nature of the problem. A.An Egyptian priest about 6000 years ago wrote on the walls of a tomb: "Our earth is degenerate in these latter days. These are signs that the world in coming to an end because children no longer obey their parents." B. Socrates wrote a paragragh over 2400 years ago that might well have appeared in a morning paper of today. "Children now love luxury, they have bad manners, contempt for authority, they how disrespect for elders, and love chatter in place of exercise, Children no longer rise when elders enter the room. They contradict their parents, chatter before company, gobble up dainties at the table, cross their legs and tyrannize over their teachers." Certain statistical data throw considerable light on the grim situation. In a publication Crimes in India, 1988, made by the Ministry of Home Affairs, Govt. of India, total number of juveniles apprehended for congnizable crimes under the penal code and local laws in the year 1987 and 1988 were 1,79,962 and 38,168. There is a purpose for which we are referring to the, decade old figures. The sudden change was due to enactment of Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 which defined a "Juvenile" as "male below 16 years and female below 18 years", prior to which age was same both for males and females i.e. 21 years. This reason has been given in the publication "Crimes of India". Crimes by juveniles and teenagers are increasing at an alarming pace which is certainly a cause for concern.

(3.) Appellants, hereinafter described as accused by their respective names, faced trial for offences punishable under Sections 302/307 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short, Indian Penal Code). Prosecution version as unfolded during trial is essentially as follows:- Prem Lal @ Billu, hereinafter referred to as the deceased, is stated to have paid the price for his good Samaritan's act. Sushil Kumar @ Kaku is stated to have incurred wrath of accused Surinder Kumar @ Happy, Sanjeev and one Gagan. Thetrouble started at 4:15 pm on 5th January, 1989 over a very trifle matter of the aforesaid Kaku refusing to give lift to some of the accued on his two-wheeler scooter. When he raised a cry for help, the deceased came there and tried to pacify the ruffled feelings but his efforts did not yield any result and they continued assaulting Sushil. The deceased gave slaps to Surinder and this enraged the accused Surinder and his friends who went away. They decided to teach him a lesson. Around 5.15 p.m the two appellants, one Sanjay and Gagan came there. Sanjay was shouting to teach a lesson to the deceased. Acting on such call, Sanjiv and Gagan caught hold of deceased and the accused gave a dagger blow to the left side of chest of the deceased. Promod Kumar, (Public Witness 1) and Bihari Lal (Public Witness 2) tried to help the deceased but they were not successful. On the contrary, Promod Kumar, (Public Witness 1), received some injuries on account of assaults by accused Happy. After giving a dagger below, the accused persons ran away. Deceased was taken to hospital by Satish Kumar, (Public Witness 4), but he was declared dead. information was lodged with police, investigation was undertaken and on completion thereof charge-sheet was placed. As Gagan and Sanjay were below 16 years of age, they were sent to Juvenile C court to face trial. Accused persons pleaded to be innocent. In order to further its case, 17 witnesses were examined by prosecution. Placing reliance on evidence of witnesses, Promod Kumar, (Public Witness 1) and Bihari Lal (Public Witness 2), learned trial Judge found accused persons guilty of offences punishable under Section 302 Indian Penal Code read with Section 34 thereof. Sentence of imprisonment of life and fine of Rs. 5,000/- each with default stipulation of one year rigorous imprisonment was awarded.