NURUDDIN Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) NURUDDIN , the appellant is unfortunate in the real sense of the term. He was aged about 15 years when the incident happened. He could not have been sentenced to imprisonment for life if the incident would have happened in the neighbouring Union Territories as the Children Act of 1960 applicable in those territories bars trial of cases by the Court of Sessions. The Children Act of 1960, a Central Act, provides for the care, protection, maintenance, welfare, training, education and rehabilitation of neglected or delinquent children and for the trial of delinquent children. Joint trial of a child and a person not a child is prohibited under Section 24, Children Act Children's Courts take care of a delinquent offender.

(2.) SECTION 27 Criminal P.C. 1973, provides as under:

(3.) INDEED , B deQuires, put it as a kind of 'double entry penology.' 4A. In every State a Children Act has been enacted and, juvenile offenders punishable with death or imprisonment for life, under those legislative mandates are tried exclusively by a separate Court. Joint trial of a youthful offender with any other person has been prohibited This is why we say that the accused is1 really unfortunate in not having similar care and attention by a proper or appropriate Court who could have dealt with the juvenile offender, the way in which perverts and waywards should be treated to make them redeemable members of society. We are enlightened by the decision of the Supreme Court in Gopinath Ghosh v. State of West Bengal : 1984CriLJ168 , wherein their Lordships, dealing with the provision of West Bengal Children Act, held that joint trial of minor with other accused was bad in law. Their Lordships lamented that the provisions of the West Bengal Children Act are overlooked by the courts and the beneficial provisions were not applied by the Court The plea that the accused was below 16 years was taken up only when the accused reached the door of the Supreme Court Their Lordships observed that the Courts below had committed error in not ascertaining the age of the accused and in not putting the accused before an appropriate Juvenile Court under the Children Act Their Lordships, notwithstanding the plea taken up at a very late stage, set aside the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 302, I.P.C. and directed that the appellant should be released on bail and the case was remitted to the appropriate court, which could take care of the delinquent offender under the West Bengal Children Act, Desai J. speaking for the Supreme Court observed as under (Para 10):