PARVEEN KAUR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRAYER made in the petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is for issuance of writ in the nature of habeas corpus directing the respondents to release the detenu, namely, Jasvir Singh, son of Jang Singh, husband of the petitioner, from Central Jail, Ludhiana forthwith as his detention is contrary to the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution and the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 as amended upto date, hereinafter referred to as 'the 2000 Act'.

(2.) THE detenu was arrested on 26.2.1997 in case FIR No. 22 dated 25.2.1997 registered at Police Station Baghapurana, District Faridkot under Section 302 read with Section 34 and Section 392 IPC. Vide judgment and order dated 22.5.2000, the Sessions Judge, Faridkot convicted him under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/ -. He was also convicted under Section 392 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/ -. Both the sentences of imprisonment were ordered not to run concurrently due to the ghastly murder of Vijay Kumar committed by the detenu and his co -accused, besides, committing robbery on the highway between sunset and sun -rise. Aggrieved of his conviction and sentence, the detenu, alongwith his co -convicts, filed Criminal Appeal No. 278 -DB of 2000, which was, however, dismissed by this Court vide judgment dated 14.9.2005.

(3.) UPON notice, reply has been filed by Rajpal Meena, Additional Director General of Police (Prisons), Punjab on behalf of respondent No. 2, wherein it is mentioned that the birth certificate issued by the Additional District Registrar, Births and Deaths, Moga was got verified. Vide report dated 14.10.2004 (Annexure R -2/T), the Additional District Registrar, Births and Deaths, Moga stated that the date of birth of detenu Jasvir Singh, husband of the petitioner was 20.1.1980. It is further mentioned that though the detenu was less than 18 years of age on the date of commission of the offence yet he is not entitled to be released from custody as he had not taken the plea of juvenility either during his trial or during the pendency of the appeal filed by him against his conviction and sentence.