SANDEEP Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AT the outset we would like to record that the applicant-appellant Sandeep does not wish to contest the impugned judgment rendered in Sessions Case No. 56 of 2000, which was decided by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani, on 23.5.2000. Learned counsel for the accused/appellant states that he only desires to challenge the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani dated 23.5.2006 wherein the accused/appellant has been sentenced for the charges proved against him. The solitary contention of the learned counsel for the applicant-appellant Sandeep is to the effect that he should be given the benefit of juvenility under the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the Juvenile Justice Act), as on the date of occurrence the accused-appellant was a juvenile.

(2.) IN so far as the aforesaid claim of the applicant-appellant Sandeep is concerned, it is based on the fact that the occurrence under reference took place on 17.11.1999, as also the fact, that the applicant-appellant Sandeep on the aforesaid date was more than 16 years old but less than 18 years. It would be pertinent to mention that there is no dispute between the rival parties that the date of birth of the accused/appellant Sandeep is 16.3.1982.

(3.) THE determination rendered by the trial Court was sought to be challenged by the complainant before this Court by filing Criminal Revision No. 1657 of 2003. The challenge raised by the complainant however, failed inasmuch as, Criminal Revision No. 1657 of 2003, was dismissed on 12.8.2003. Dissatisfied by the order passed by the order passed by the trial Court dated 21.5.2003, as also the order passed by this Court on 12.8.2003, the complainant raised the same challenge before the Apex Court. The Supreme Court accepted the claim of the complainant by relying on a judgment rendered by it in Partap Singh v. State of Jharkhand, 2005(1) RCR(Crl) 836 : 2005(1) Apex Crl. 358 : 2005(3) SCC 551. It was held by the Apex Court that the accused/appellant was not a juvenile. It is, therefore, that the applicant-appellant Sandeep was tried with all other co-accused without any benefit of being a Juvenile.