SHAUKAT Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants along with another accused Feroz were convicted for the commission of the offences punishable under Sections 120 -B and 364 -A of the Indian Penal Code('IPC' for short) by the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide judgment dated 2nd July, 2010 and vide order dated 7th July, 2010 they were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and also to pay fine of Rs.500/ - each, in default of payment of fine were ordered to undergo further simple imprisonment of six months under Section 364 -A IPC. They were also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and fine of Rs.500/ - each, in default to undergo additional simple imprisonment of three months under Section 120 -B IPC. Both the substantive sentences of imprisonment were ordered to run concurrently and benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C. was also extended to them. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence awarded to them the three convicted accused had filed separate appeals.

(2.) DURING the pendency of the appeal filed by accused Feroz(being Crl.Appeal No.73/2011) he moved an application that he was a juvenile and so he was entitled to the benefits available to the juveniles accused of the commission of any offence under the Juvenile Justice(Care and protection of Children) Act,2000. This Court conducted an enquiry into his age and he was found to be a juvenile. But thereafter Feroz did not challenge his conviction and since he had already spent more than eight years in jail, which period was much more than for which he could be detained as a juvenile, he was directed to be released from jail by this Court vide order dated 8th July,2011. That appeal was disposed of accordingly. Though similar plea was then raised by accused -appellant Shaukat also but after medical report was received from the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi about his age and when that aspect was being considered the learned counsel for Shaukat gave up the plea of juvenility and requested for hearing of his appeal on merits.

(3.) THE relevant facts leading to the conviction of the two accused -appellants are as follows: