ANANDA BAURI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals, Criminal Appeals Nos. 118 and 152 of 1988 preferred by the appellants Mahadeb Bauri and Ananda Bauri respectively are directed against the same judgment and order dated 14-3-88, passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Purulia, in Sessions Trial No. 17 of 1987 (Sessions Case No. 27 of 1985), convicting Mahadeb Bauri (Appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 118 of 1988), under Sections 395/109, I.P.C. and sentencing him to R.I. for five years and convicting Ananda Bauri (Appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 152 of 1988) u/S. 395, I.P.C. and Section 9B (1)(b) of the Indian Explosives Act, and sentencing him to suffer R.I. for five years and pay fine of Rs. 1000/- i.d., suffer R.I. for six months more on conviction under Section 395, I.P.C. and to suffer R.I. for six months on conviction u/S. 9B (1)(b) of the I.E. Act, both the sentences to run concurrently. Both the Appeals are, therefore, heard analogously.

(2.) At the very outset of the hearing of those Appeals, Mr. Milan Mukherjee, learned Advocate, appearing on behalf of the appellant Ananda Bauri (Appellant in 152 of 1988) submitted that the appellant was a minor at the time of the alleged occurrence and as such his trial and conviction have been vitiated and the conviction and sentence are liable to be set aside.

(3.) Mr. Mukherjee, learned Advocate, draw the attention of the Court to the evidence of P.W. 1, A.S.I. Subodh Rakshit (who arrested the appellant at the time of occurrence), in cross-examination at page 9 (first para last 2 lines), stating that "At the time of occurrence, the age of the accused Ananda was about 15/16 years".