DHARAMVIR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner Dharamvir stands convicted in the trial based upon FIR No.529/96 P.S. Sultan Puri for the offences punishable under Section 302/120B/34 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act. He was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life, besides fine, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide order dated 31.01.2000.

(2.) The petitioner preferred an appeal against his conviction and order on sentence, being Crl.A.No.222/2000 which was dismissed by the High Court of Delhi on 15.05.2002. Even the SLP filed by the petitioner against the dismissal of his appeal was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 16.10.2003.

(3.) As per the nominal roll submitted by the Jail Superintendent, the petitioner has already undergone incarceration for a period of 12 years 5 months and 25 days as on 23.08.2009. It is alleged by the petitioner that he was a juvenile on the date of commission of offence, therefore his case ought to have been dealt with under the provisions of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2000 (hereinafter called the `Act') and in view of Section 15 of the Act, he could have been sent to a Special Home for a maximum period of 3 years. Learned counsel submitted that the error has crept in because the Amicus Curiae provided for defence of the appellant failed to bring the factum of juvenility to the notice of the trial court or subsequent courts. Learned counsel further submitted that Section 7-A of the Act provides for the procedure to be followed when the claim of juvenility is raised before any Court and proviso to Section 7-A(1) provides that such a claim may be raised before any court at any stage and even after the final disposal of the case. He further submits that sub-Section 2 of Section 7-A provides that if the court finds a person to be a juvenile on the date of commission of offence, it shall forward the juvenile to the Board for passing appropriate order and the sentence, if any, passed by a Court shall be deemed to have no effect. Learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that in the instant case, the Juvenile Justice Board, after conducting inquiry, has found the appellant to be a juvenile aged about 17 years and 4 months on the date of commission of offence i.e. 23.05.1996. As such, he is entitled to the benefit of the provisions of the Act and he should be dealt with in accordance with Section 7-A of the Act. Learned counsel has thus strongly urged for release of the petitioner for the reason that he has already undergone incarceration for a period of about 13 years, which is much more than the maximum period of 3 years for which a juvenile can be detained in a Special Home.