JAI KISHAN ALIAS JAIKI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant Jai Kishan alias Jaiki, who was 17 years of age on the day of commission of the alleged offence, i.e. 13.10.1997, was tried by the court of Sessions Judge, Rohtak, for the offence under Section 302 IPC, for committing the murder of Subhash, a covillager. The court of Additional Sessions Judge, Jhajjar, vide its judgment dated 16.8.2001 convicted the appellant under Section 302 IPC, and vide order dated 18.8.2001, sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of 20,000. It has been further ordered that in case, fine of Rs. 20,000 is paid by the appellant, the same be given to the legal heirs of the deceased, as compensation. By the time, the appellant was convicted and sentenced the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000) had come into force and the earlier Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986) was repealed. Under the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, a new definition of 'juvenile in conflict with law' was introduced, which defined a juvenile who is alleged to have committed an offence and has not completed eighteenth year of age as on the date of commission of such offence, whereas under the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, the upper agelimit for male children to be considered as juveniles was 16 years. On 13.2.1998, when the appellant was charge sheeted, he was 17 years of age, therefore, he was not treated as a 'juvenile' under the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, and he was tried by the regular criminal court and not by the Juvenile Justice Board.

(2.) As per the prosecution version, which is based upon the statement (Ex. PI) of Mann Singh (PW5), father of Subhash (the deceased), his son Subhash and appellant Jai Kishan were working with a contractor at Nazabgarh (Delhi). They used to return to the village in the evening. About one month prior to the occurrence, while digging earth for fixing a poll, a quarrel had taken place between Subhash on one side and the appellant Jai Kishan along with Gulshan, Pallu and Radhey Sham on the other side. At that time, Subhash was given injuries by the appellant with fist blows. The other workers working under the said contractor had intervened. On return to the house, Subhash told about the said occurrence to the complainant and his elder son Maman. They asked Subhash not to remain in the company of such bad persons. It is further alleged that the complainant along with his son Maman went to the house of the appellant in the evening, but the appellant declared that as and when he will get an opportunity, he will kill Subhash, as he has given fist blows to him. It is further the case of the prosecution that on 13.10.1997 at about 12 noon, when the complainant along with his nephew Jagdish (PW6) and son Subhash was going to the pond to bring water for doing plaster work at his house, the appellant suddenly arrived from the street having a knife in his hand, near the Chaupal of Khumahar, and raised lalkara to teach lesson to Subhash, who was going ahead of the complainant. Within the sight of the complainant, the appellant gave one knife blow to Subhash on his abdomen. He gave two more knife blows, one on the armpit and the other on the chest of Subhash. When the complainant and Jagdish rushed towards Subhash to save him, the appellant threatened them by showing the knife and thereafter, he ran away fro,n the spot. Thereafter, the complainant and Jagdish took Subhash to Civil Hospital, Bahadurgarh, but he died on the way and was declared dead by the Doctor. On the, same day at 1.45 p.m., Dr. Inderjit Singh Dhankar (PW10) sent ruqa (Ex. PK) to Police station Sadar Bahadurgarh and on receipt of the same, the police arrived in the Hospital and recorded the statement of the complainant, on the basis of which the formal FIR (Ex. P/l) was recorded.

(3.) On 14.10.1997, Dr. Murari Lai Sharma (PW3), PGIMS, Rohtak conducted autopsy of the deceased. He found three injuries caused by sharp edged weapon on the body of the deceased. According to him, the probable time between death and the postmortem was between 12 to 24 hours and in his opinion, cause of death of the deceased was haemorrhage and shock, as a result of multiple injuries, which were antemortem in nature and sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. He proved the Postmortem Report of the deceased as Ext. PB.