GUDDU S/O VIKRAM Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 7- 6-2012, passed by Addl. Sessions Judge/1st F.T.C. Rudrapur, Udham Singh Nagar in Sessions Trial No. 245/2006 State Vs. Guddu and another whereby accused-appellant Guddu was convicted U/Ss 363, 366 , 376 and 506 I.P.C. and accused-appellant Mahendra was convicted U/Ss 363 and 366 I.P.C.

(2.) During the pendency of appeal, on behalf of accused/appellant Guddu CRMA No. 886 of 2013 has been moved U/S 391 Cr.P.C. read with Section 7-A of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, on the ground that when the incident took place the accused-appellant Guddu was below 18 years of age. He has studied upto 5th standard and as per school leaving certificate and other relevant documents the date of birth of the appellant is 6-6-1989. It is further pleaded that the incident took place on 14-7-2006 and thus on the date of incident the age of appellant Guddu was 17 years 01 month and 08 days and he was juvenile, but due to inadvertence the plea of juvenile could not be taken before the trial court nor any documents regarding age of the accused could be produced before the trial court and in absence of the documentary evidence and plea thereof the appellant could not get the benefit of being juvenile. Along with the application, photo copies of mark-sheet of class 5th, school leaving certificate and date of birth certificate issued by Headmistress of Govt. Primary School K. Block Beni, Rudrapur-Pant Nagar have been annexed. In these documents the date of birth has been noted 6.6.1989.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the appellant Guddu has contended that the appellant was juvenile at the time of incident hence he is entitled to get benefit and the matter requires scrutiny under Section 7-A of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 ( in short 'the Act') whether the accused was juvenile or not. This plea can be raised at any stage, in appeal also. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the matter may be referred to conduct enquiry as to whether at the time of occurrence the appellant was a juvenile or not. In support of his contention he has relied on the case of Dharambir versus State (NCT of Delhi) and another, 2010 5 SCC 344 and the case Hari Ram vs. State of Rajasthan and another, 2009 13 SCC 211.