A. KABEER Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITION filed under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter, "the Cr.P.C."). Petitioner challenges the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Alappuzha, whereby his plea that he was a juvenile at the time of commission of the alleged offence and therefore he was entitled to the benefit under the provisions of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (in short, "the Act") was rejected on the reasoning that he had completed 18 years long before 01.04.2001, the date of commencement of the Act. Thereafter charge was framed by the court. Facts in brief are the following: Petitioner/accused was the sole accused in S.C. No. 52 of 1998 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court, Alappuzha. He is indicted for offences punishable under Secs. 323, 307 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter, "the IPC"). He was once tried and convicted. He was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life under Sec. 302 IPC and appropriate punishments were imposed under other penal provisions of IPC. An appeal was filed before this Court as Crl. A. No. 594 of 2001. This Court set aside the conviction and sentence of the petitioner and remanded the matter to the trial court for de novo trial. It was also directed that the trial court should Crl. MC No. 4522/2008... 2 consider whether it was a fit case in which powers under Sec. 319 of the Cr.P.C. could have been invoked to rope in other persons involved in the offence. In the course of de novo trial, after examining material witnesses, trial court arraigned PWs. 1 and 3 therein as accused in the case. That order was challenged by those persons in Crl. R.P. No. 393 of 2004 before this Court. That revision petition was allowed and they were exonerated from criminal liability. At the time of allowing the revision petition, this Court observed that it was open to the Investigating Officer to conduct further investigation under Sec. 173(8) of the Cr.P.C. Pursuant to that, the Investigating Officer conducted further investigation and submitted an additional charge sheet in which one more accused was implicated. It is interesting to note that the accused thereafter implicated in the crime was none other than the person who sustained injuries in the incident and succumbed to the injuries. However, at present the petitioner is the accused facing trial.

(2.) THE relevant aspects coming up for consideration in this matter are the claim of juvenility of the petitioner and its ramifications. Court below raised points regarding these aspects and found that the petitioner was a juvenile on the date of commission of offence. Nonetheless, it found that he was not entitled to get the protection of the Act, as he had completed 18 years much before 01.04.2001 and decided to frame charges against him.

(3.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. It will be apposite to consider the statutory provisions for clear understanding, before dealing with facts.