LATHA Vs. INSPECTOR OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner is the wife of one Kundumani, who is one of the convict in S.C. Nos. 56 & 51 of 1985 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Madurai North at Dindigul. In both the cases, the said Kundumani has been arrayed as Accused No. 3. After trial in both the cases, among other offences, he was convicted under Section 302 read with 149, I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment in each case, by common judgment dated 28.8.1985 and both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The Appeal preferred by the said Accused was also dismissed by this Court, confirming the conviction and sentenced imposed on him and now he is undergoing the imprisonment imposed on him in Central Prison, Madurai. Claiming that her husband was a juvenile at the time of commission of the offence in both the cases and therefore, he is entitled to the benefit of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (in short "the Act") the Petitioner has come forward with this Habeas Corpus Petition seeking release of her husband.

(2.) According to the Petitioner, the original name of her husband is Pitchaikani and his nick name is Kundumani and to that effect the Village Administrative Officer as well as the Headmaster of TELC Primary School, M. Kallupatti, have issued certificates. It is further stated that the date of birth of his husband is 1.9.1967 and the alleged occurrence is said to have taken place on 24.7.1984 and as such he was only 16 years, 8 months and 23 days old on the date of the commission of the offence and therefore, he is a juvenile on the date of commission of offence and he is entitled to get the benefit of Sections 2(k), 2(12), 7A, 20 & 49 of the Act. With the above contentions, the present Petition has been filed.

(3.) Among many grounds raised, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner raised preliminary objection with regard to the age of the detenu/convict at the time of the offence committed. According to him, at the time of the offence committed, the detenu was a juvenile. Therefore, pending main Habeas Corpus Petition, on an Application filed by the Petitioner in M.P. (MD) No. 1 of 2011, this Court, in and by order dated 5.1.2012, directed the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Dindigul, to hold an enquiry to determine the age of the Petitioner's husband, the detenu/convict, on the date of commission of the offence, namely 24.7.1984 and submit a report. Accordingly, the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Dindigul District, has held an enquiry and analysed evidence collected and submitted a Report vide D. No. 1241, dated 20.2.2012, determining the date of birth of detenu as 1.9.1967 and his age at the time of commission of offence i.e. on 24.7.1984, as 16 years, 10 months and 24 days. As to the name of the Accused/detenu Kundumani, the District Judge has observed that the Accused/detenu Kundumani is having another name 'Pitchaikani', as stated by the witnesses during his enquiry, namely PW1 & PW3 to PW7 and as found in documents marked as Exs.P-6 & P-8.