DREKONDA YADAIAH Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A-1 in the Sessions Case No. 8 of 1998 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Siddipet preferred Criminal Appeal No. 67 of 1999, whereas A-2 to A-6 in Sessions Case No. 8 of 1998 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Siddipet preferred Criminal Appeal No. 1610 of 1998. The accused were charged with the offences punishable under Sections 363,376 and Section 363 read with Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Judge, on appreciation of evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 14 and Exs. P-1 to P-15 and also Exs. D-1 to D-5 arrived at a conclusion that the accused were guilty of the offences charged and had sentenced them accordingly.

(2.) The specific stand taken by the Appellant/A-1 in Criminal Appeal No. 67 of 1999 is that inasmuch as appellant/A-1 is a juvenile, he should have been tried in accordance with the provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act and hence the trial is vitiated. P.W. 13 deposed that as per the doctor certificate A-1 is shown as aged about 14 to 16 years. Ex. D-4, age certificate of A-1, was also marked. Specific stand was taken that the date of birth of appellant/A-1 is 10-04-1982 and a certificate to that effect was produced. Despite the same, the learned Judge proceeded with the matter and recorded conviction and also sentenced him accordingly. In Krishnareddigari Pradeep Reddy @ Sandeep @ Pradeep v. Station House Officer, Parigi- where the appellant/ accused though he was juvenile at the time of offence and also on the date of first production in Court, was tried and convicted by the Sessions Judge and in view of Section 2(h) and Section 32 of Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 the trial and conviction were held to be vitiated and hence the conviction and sentence were set aside and the matter was remanded to the Juvenile Court, In Gopinath Ghosh v. The State of West Bengal it was held that:

(3.) In Mohammad Bin Nasar Masood v. State of Andhra Pradesh while dealing with the provisions of Juvenile Justice Act held that juvenile means a boy who has not attained the age of 16 years or a girl who has not attained the age of 18 years and in the instant case the Sessions Court found that as on the date of the alleged offence i.e., 17/ 18-10-1990, the accused had not completed 16 years of age, that he is a juvenile and that only the Juvenile Court is competent to enquire into the allegations made against the accused-It is proper for this Court to direct the Juvenile Court to try the allegations made against the accused No. 1-Conviction and sentence set aside and the case remitted to Juvenile Court for trial.