GADDE KOTESWARA RAO Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In Sessions Case No. 25 of 1968 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Krishna at Machilipatnam, A-6 was convicted for the offences under sections 147, 148 read with 149, 330 read with 149 ard 304 part read with 149, Indian Penal Code, for the part played by him in the burning of a Harijan boy at Kaochikacherla on 24th February, 1968, after pouring kerosene on him and setting fire to him in order to extorta confession regarding some thefts, and in lieu of the sentence of imprisonment, as he was less than 16 years then the Sessions Judge holding that as A-6 comes under the definition of 'young person' defined in section 3 (2) of the Madras Children Act IV of 1920, directed under section 23 (2) of the said Act that he should be sent to a Senior Certified School for a period of two years. In Crl. A.No.946 of 1968 filed by the State, all the above convictions as against A-6 were set aside and he along with A-3 and A-5 was instead convicted for the offence under section 302 read with 34, Indian Penal Code and as A-6 has now beer, found guilty of the offence order section 302 read with section 34, Indian Penal Code, the period of detention was enhanced from two years to five years.

(2.) In working out the direction of the Court regarding the detention of A-6 the Sessions Judge directed that as A-6 has not completed 16 years of age, he should be detained in the Senior Certified School for a period of two years, thereafter in the Bors'al School for a period of three years and after discharge from the Borstal, he should be sent to the Central Jail to serve the rest of the period of life imprisonment.

(3.) On a reference made to this Court by the Public Prosecutor, it was clarified by a Bench of this Court stating that the period of detention of five years ordered in appeal was in lieu of the sentence of imprisonment for life and the 6th accused is not to be sent to jail to serve any further period after his period of detention in the Borstal School is over. After that order, a memo has been filed on behalf of A-6 contending that A-6 cannot be sent to the Borstal School after he had completed the period of two years in the Senior Certified School as the provisions of the Borstal School Act bestows, jurisdiction on the Court only when the off nder at the time of the conviction was not less than 16 years and not more than 21 years of age that neither the provisions under section 8 nor sectior 10-A of the Borstal School Act are attracted and that therefore the clarification to the effect that A-6 should be detained in the Borstal School for the rest of the period of five years is without jurisdictior and void that sections 3 (3), 22, 23 and 24 of the Madras Childrens Act make it amply clear that he must automatically be released on his attaining the age of 18 years and as the 6th accused has attained 18 years of age, he should now be released; that the Court cannot treat the provisions of the Childrens Act and the Borstal Schools Act as supplementirg each other and that the period of five years of detertion fixed ir the judgment of the Court should terminate on the accused attaining 18 years.