KRISHAN MURARI AND ANOHER Vs. STATE DELHI ADMINISTRATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this appeal, Krishan Murari @ Pappu and his younger brother Krishan Pal Kuckoo challenge the legality of the judgment dated the 31st January, 1984 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, whereby they were convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. They further challenge his order of the same date sentencing them to life imprisonment. The further sentence imposed on Krishan Pal under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code to undergo 9 months, rigorous imprisonment is also sought to be set aside.

(2.) . Before proceeding to the merits of the case, we have to highlight that the appellants were adolescent on the date of commission of offence, i.e., 18th February, 1983. Their statements under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were recorded on 17th January, 1984. Krishan Murari declared himself to be 19 years old and his younger brother Krishan Pal stated that he was 17 years old. Their ages it appears from the record were not challenged by the prosecution. The learned trial Court has not given any finding about their ages although it has been noticed in the order sentencing them that life imprisonment has been awarded to them "considering the age of the accused". The learned Judge was of the view and rightly so that because of their young ages, they ought not be sentenced to death.

(3.) . As one of the questions raised before us is that the appellants ought to have been directed to be detained in a Borstal Institution under Section 5 of the Punjab Borstal Act, 1926 in lieu of the sentence imposed on them, we wanted to hold an inquiry about their ages. By our order of 27th November, 1987 while noticing the ages given by the appellants in their said statements, we directed the state counsel to ascertain whether the prosecution was contesting the ages given by the appellants. We noticed that, "We agree with her that in case the State is not contesting the ages of the appellants, as given by them, then the ages given by the appellants in their statements have to be accepted."