STATE OF MANIPUR Vs. NANDEIBAM GRACESON MEITEI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. R.S. Reisang, learned senior Govt. Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. N. Mahendra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1 as well as Mr. T. Rajendra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents No. 8 and 9. None appears for the remaining respondents.

(2.) THE present Cril. Revision petition has been preferred by the State being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 12.06.2008 passed by the Ld. Sessions Judge, Manipur East in Session Trial No.3 of 2007 by which the Ld. Sessions Judge held the accused -respondent No.1 to be a juvenile in conflict with law, by giving benefit to the accused -respondent No.1 on the ground that the case of the accused -respondent No.1 fell in the marginal category.

(3.) IN course of the criminal proceeding initiated against the accused -respondent No.1 and others, the accused - respondent No.1 had pleaded that he was a minor, thus a juvenile in conflict with law and accordingly, pleaded that he be proceeded in accordance with the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") before the Juvenile Justice Board and not under the normal criminal court. This led to the filing of the Cril. Revision Petition No. 2 of 2007 by the accused -respondent No.1 before the Gauhati High Court challenging the proceeding in the criminal court on the ground that the accused -respondent No.1 was a minor. The Gauhati High Court by judgment and order dated 21.05.2007 passed in the aforesaid Cril. Revision Case No.2 of 2007 directed for holding an enquiry to ascertain the correct age of the accused -respondent No.1. The High Court directed the Learned Sessions Judge, Manipur East to decide the question of the age of the accused -respondent No.1 on the basis of an enquiry to be conducted by the Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Imphal West. Accordingly, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Imphal West conducted an enquiry to ascertain the age of the accused -respondent No.1 and on conclusion of the enquiry submitted the report dated 29.03.2008 which was taken up in Criminal (Misc.) Case No. 61 of 2007 by the Ld. Sessions Judge, Manipur East. By the said report, the learned Judicial Magistrate held that the age of the accused - respondent No.1 at the time of his medical examination on 23.06.2007 was above 19 years and thus above 18 years at the time of arrest on 30.07.2006. The learned Sessions Judge, Manipur East considered the report of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Imphal West as stated above. The learned Sessions Judge, did not find any fault with the procedure adopted and the conclusion arrived by the learned Judicial Magistrate. However, the learned Sessions Judge, Manipur East accepted the contention of the accused -respondent No.1 that when the age of the accused person was marginally above 18 years, benefit should be given in favour of the accused relying on the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in Pratap Singh -vs -State of Jharkhand and Anr. reported in AIR 2005 SC 2731, and (2005) 3 SCC 551. The learned Sessions Judge, observed that though the accused -respondent No.1 was found to be above 18 years of age after enquiry by the learned Judicial Magistrate, since it was a borderline case, benefit should be given to the accused. Accordingly, the learned Sessions Judge, Manipur East by giving benefit to the accused -respondent No.1 concluded that the accused -respondent No.1 is a juvenile in conflict with law, and directed that he should be proceeded in accordance with the provisions of sub -section 2 of Section 7A of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 accordingly, released him on bail.