KASHMIR SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) First Information Report No. 39 dated 2.7.1993 under Sections 302. 324 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code was registered at Police Station Division No. 1. Jalandhar on the statement of Nagina Lal wherein he had stated among other things that on 2-7-1993 at about 7 a.m. Channan Singh, his son Kashmir Singh (petitioner-herein) and Surjit Kaur entered his house and proclaimed that they would teach a lesson for purchasing the house of Saroj Kumari, and Channan Singh gave a blow with his dagger to complainant Nagina Lal. The complainant has also stated that in his defence he gave blow with a dang on the bead of Surjit Kaur. According to the complainant. Channan Singh and petitioner-Kashmir Singh went running towards Amritsar Transport Company where the complainant's son Mukteshwar was working, quarrelled with Mukteshwar and made him fall down. The complainant has further stated that Channan Singh gave three blows with his dagger to the abdomen of Mukteshwar which ultimately resulted in the death of Mukteshwar.

(2.) A charge under section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code has been framed against the petitioner-Kashmir Singh who is facing trial before the Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar.

(3.) According to the petitioner Kashmir Singh he was born on 16-7-1978 and was therefore below 16 years on the date of the alleged occurrence i.e. 2-7-1993. The petitioner claims that he is, therefore, a Juvenile as defined under section 2(h) of the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act. The petitioner further contends that in view of the provisions contained in Section 24 of the Act. the petitioner cannot be tried jointly with the other accused and there should be a separate trail in respect of the Juvenile. The learned Additional Sessions Judge. Jalandhar, passed an order on 15-7-1997 as follows: State versus Kashmir Singh Present: APP for the State. Accused on bail except Chanan Singh, who is in custody. Heard. The perusal of the record shows that similar point was raised before my learned Predecessor in the year 1994 and he vide order dated 14-1-1994 held that the accused to be above 16 years of age on the basis of record produced before him at that time. I doubt if the second application for the same purpose is maintainable. Hence declined. For statement of accused u/s. 313 Cr. P.C. to come up on 28-7-1997.