SUDHANSHU KUMARALIAS MADHU MANGAL Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A reference under Section 366 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been made by the Sessions Judge, Muzaffarpur for confirmation of death sentence as awarded by him to the condemned in respect of Sessions Trial No. 739/2008. In the said sessions trial by judgment dated 1 st February, 2010, he found the accused guilty of offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for having brutally slaughtered his mother and two years old nephew. By order dated 16.2.2010, upon such conviction being made, he has been sentenced to death.

(2.) THE condemned has preferred the connected appeal. While preferring the appeal, in the memo of appeal, it was stated that the occurrence had taken place on 22.6.2008 when he was a minor. The reliance was placed on the Bihar School Examination Board certificate of matriculation which showed his death of birth to be 3.7.1990 which makes him just slightly less than 18 years on the date of occurrence. In other words, 17 years 11 months and 19 days would be the age on the date of occurrence. It appears that the informant who is the uncle of the condemned (Mausa) appeared in these proceedings to oppose the prayer. Twice this Court gave him liberty to take instruction on the question of minority and counter the same. He was unable to do so. He then requested the court to decide the same on papers available. This Court, accordingly, by order dated 5.7.2011 referred the matter to the Juvenile Justice Board, Muzaffarpur to inquire in terms of Section 14 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. The records were sent down. They have since been received with the proceedings of the Juvenile Justice Board and its records. The order-cum-report of the Juvenile Justice Board, Muzaffarpur dated 25.1.2012 clearly gives a finding that the condemned was less than 18 years old on the date of occurrence and, as such, would be a juvenile in conflict with law. The finding is based on various evidences produced before the Juvenile Justice Board, which includes the matriculation certificate issued on 28th of May, 2007 by the Bihar School Examination Board, Patna in respect of the condemned clearly showing his date of birth to be 3rd July, 1990. Let it be noted that this certificate was issued long before the date of occurrence. It has been duly verified from the authorities of the Bihar School Examination Board and have been compared with entries in the original records of the Board. Father and others have also been examined by the Board. The Juvenile Justice Board having given this finding that the condemned is a juvenile in conflict with law, neither the State nor the informant being in a position to challenge the same, we have no option but to accept the same with whatever consequences.

(3.) A reading of Rule 22(5) would show that the Juvenile Justice Board came to a correct finding being based upon the matriculation certificate and, therefore, it chose not to take into account other evidences. The finding is that the condemned is a juvenile in conflict with law. In terms of Section 18 of the Act, there could not have been a trial. He could not have been charged. In terms of Section 16 of the Act, he could not have been sentenced to imprisonment much less life imprisonment or death. We do not fault the trial court for what it has done inasmuch as the plea of juvenility does not seem to have been raised before it. In view of Section 7-A(1) of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2000 and the proviso thereto, the plea of juvenility was being raised for the first time before this Court and this Court entertained the plea and referred the matter to the Juvenile Justice Board, Muzaffarpur.