A OMANA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The mother of the detenu filed this Habeas Corpus Petition stating that his son, S.O.Sindhu has been impleaded in a criminal case for an offence under Section 302 IPC in Crime No. 471 of 2000 of Kaliyakkavilai Police Station, Kanyakumari District and for the same he was convicted to life imprisonment on 6.11.2003. On that date, he aged about 18 years, one month seven days. But, the learned Sessions Judge, Kanyakumari, has passed an order to life conviction and the detenu was sent to Central Jail, but as per Section 8 of the Tamil Nadu Borstal School Act 1925 (5 of 1926), an adolescent offender should have been sent to Borstal School instead of Central Jail. But, that has not been considered by the Sessions Court. Now, she came to know about this full Court Judgment in H.C.P. No. 596 of 2007 dated 6.2.2008 and her son is adolescent at the time of conviction. Hence, her son is entitled to the benefit of Section 8 of the above said Act and he has now completed 23 years, hence, she prays for call for the records and to quash the same and set the detenu, namely, Sindhu, at liberty.

(2.) The detenu, the petitioner's son is an accused S.C. No. 9 of 2001 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Kanyakumari District. The learned Sessions Judge has passed an order on 6.11.2003 found him guilty under Section 302 I.P.C and awarded life imprisonment and also imposed a fine of Rs. 25,000/-. Against the same, the detenu had preferred an appeal in Crl.A.No. 307 of 2004 before this Court and the same has been dismissed on 12.2.2008. During the pendencies of the Sessions Case and Criminal Appeal before this Court, the detenu has raised the plea that he was an adolescent offender at the time of conviction and he has not disputed the age.

(3.) At this juncture, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor relied upon the decision Sudesh Kumar v. State of Uttarakhad (2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 634 : (2008) 1 MLJ (Crl) 1181. The relevant portion is as follows at p. 1187 of MLJ (Crl):