(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, convicting Mohan Singh appellant under section 302, Indian Penal Code, for the murder of Tirath Ram by giving him knife blow. He was liable to be sentenced to death or to imprisonment for life but the Court below relying on section 22 of the Bombay Children Act (Bombay Act XIII of 1924) as extended to Delhi, directed a report to be made to the Delhi Administration under section 26 of this Act to pass such orders as the said Administration may think fit and proper for the detention of the accused. Till the receipt of the orders of the Delhi Administration, Mohan Singh accused was directed to be kept in safe custody in the Remand House where he was kept daring the trial. This order was passed on 24th May, 1961. On 28th September, 1961 the learned Additional Sessions Judge in accordance with the direction of the Chief Commissioner ordered that the appellant be detained in Reformatory School, Hissar, till he attained the age of 18 years and thereafter to be detained in the Borstal School Ferozepur till be attained the age of 21 years. It is necessary to point out here that the accused was considered to be 15 years old on 16th August, 1960. The offence was committed on 26th July, 1960. He was, therefore, a youthful offender as defined in section 3 (c) of the Bombay Children Act, being under the age of 16 years at the time of the commission of the offence. It is in these circumstances that the present appeal has been preferred.
(2.) TO begin with, the learned counsel for the appellant addressed arguments challenging the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge directing the appellant's detention in the Borstal School. Ferozepur, after he attains the age of 18 years. This argument has been addressed on the assumption that the conviction is justified and indeed the learned counsel started her contention by submitting that in case she failed to persuade us to agree with her on this point, she would address arguments on the merits of the conviction. In support of this contention, we have been referred to High Court Rules & Orders, Vol, III, Chapter 22 -D, which contains the instructions issued by the Punjab Government in its circular dated 4th February, 1939 on the subject of Borstal Jail extracts. The learned counsel has contended that it is not proper for the appellant to be sent to Borstal Jail after he attains the age of 18 years because there, he would be in the company of more hardened criminals which would have an unwholesome effect on him and that he may come out of the Borstal Institution a more hardened criminal. She has emphasized that according to her information the appellant is behaving in an exemplary manner in the Reformatory school and that after three years there is every like hood of his being fully reformed and that it would be more desirable that he is restored to his liberty rather than kept in the Borstal Institute for another period of three years which may undo the good effect of his detention in the Reformatory School. In support of this contention, she had referred us to the various passages in Chapter 22 -D mentioned above. In am, however, unable to persuade myself to agree with this contention. In my opinion, keeping in view the tendencies of the appellant at this young age, it would be far better for him to remain in the Borstal Jail after the age of 18 years and to remain under certain discipline.
(3.) MANGAL Singh, 26 years old, read up to Intermediate, is married and is a Stenographer in Air Force.