MALA Vs. INSPECTOR OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Habeas Corpus Petition is filed by the wife of the detenu, to direct the respondents to produce the corpus of the detenu, namely A.Ravikumar @ Kutti Ravi, son of Annaiappa, now lodged at Central Prison, Vellore, before this Court and set him at liberty as per the amended provision of Section 4 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Amendment Act, 2006 as Juvenile at the time of commission of offence, dated 15.1.1998.

(2.) Brief facts leading to filing of this petition are as follows:

(3.) Mr.S.Doraisamy, learned counsel for the petitioner, in his submissions, strenuously contended the detenu was born on 19.7.1980 and on the date of commission of the offence, he was a 'Juvenile' and aged about 17 years, 5 months and 26 days, and therefore, he was a 'Juvenile in conflict with law' as per the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, as amended by Act 33 of 2006) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). He further contended that in this regard, this Court has ordered for enquiry, by order dated 1.2.2013 with a direction to the learned Principal District Judge, Krishnagiri to conduct an enquiry with regard to the age of the detenu and submit a report, based on which, the Principal District Judge submitted a report, dated 5.4.2013 to this Court, stating that the detenu's date of birth is 19.7.1980. Learned counsel further submitted that the said report confirms the petitioner's claim that the detenu's date of birth is 19.7.1980, and the documentary proof had been taken into account by the learned District Judge in Exs.C1 to C4 and the evidence of C.Ws.1 to 3 had also been considered by the learned District Judge. He pleaded that such a conclusion arrived at by the learned Principal District Judge in his report shows the credibility of the claim of the petitioner with regard to the 'Juvenility' of the detenu, and the same may be accepted and the benefit of the Act may be extended to the detenu. It is his further contention that the Act being a beneficial Legislation and based on the repeated rulings of the Supreme Court and this Court, the benefit had been extended to the detenus who were in jail and he therefore prayed that as the detenu is in jail for more than 11 years, he may be given the benefit of the said Legislation and he may be released from jail.