MD. RAMIJ UDDIN Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An application has been filed on behalf of convict Ramij Uddin who was convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code in Sessions Case No.9/2000 by judgment and order dated 08.03.2002 of the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Cachar at Silchar. An appeal against the aforesaid judgment was preferred before this Court vide Criminal Appeal No.197(J)/2002 by the present applicant along with two other persons but the said appeal was dismissed on 22.06.2007. Consequently, all the convicts of the aforesaid Sessions Case have been serving sentence. By the present application it has been brought to the notice of the Court that the occurrence took place on 31.07.1998 on which date the applicant Ramij Uddin was a juvenile. As per school certificate he was 14 years 8 months on the date of occurrence as his date of birth was 31.12.1983. Although the occurrence had taken place on 31.07.1998 but the Sessions Case was pending on 01.04.2001 when the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (Act 56 of 2000) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') came into force. In view of the provision of Section 20 of the aforesaid Act, the learned Sessions Judge was required to present the applicant to Juvenile Justice Board instead of passing any sentence in respect of him on being satisfied on enquiry that the applicant was a juvenile in conflict with law as on the date of commission of offence. The same was not done and even during pendency of the appeal, this aspect of the matter was not noticed. It is the prayer of the applicant that he is entitled to the benefit of Section 7-A(2) of the Act in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and he be released from jail as the sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge should be deemed to have no effect.

(2.) In the case of Abdul Razzaq vs. State of U.P. in Criminal Misc. Petition No.17870 /2014 in Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.2838/2000 the Hon'ble Supreme Court had set aside the sentence imposed on a similar case leaving the conviction undisturbed. In doing so, the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the provision of Section 7-A of the Act and observed in paragraph 10 thereof as follows :-

(3.) It has already been held in catena of cases by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that even if an appeal has been dismissed but it is brought to the notice of the Court that the convict was a juvenile in conflict with law as on the date of commission of the offence, it is the duty of the Court to cause an enquiry under Section 7-A(2) of the Act and the Rules holding the field and thereupon if it comes to light that the convict was a juvenile in conflict with law, in that event he should be given the benefit of Section 7-A. Accordingly, this Court directed the learned Sessions Judge, Cachar, to hold an enquiry as to whether convict Ramij Uddin was a juvenile in conflict with law as on the date of commission of offence. The learned Sessions Judge held an enquiry and has submitted his report on 23.08.2016. Upon perusal of the report it appears that the convict was a juvenile in the year 1998 when the offence was committed. In that view of the matter, the applicant is entitled to the benefit under Section 7-A of the Act.