PRAHLAD Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Short question that emerges for consideration is as to what procedure in an old criminal appeal should be adopted after finding the accused appellant (now 37 years of age) squarely fell within the definition of 'child' under the Rajasthan Children's Act, 1970 on the date of occurrence i.e. June 27, 1980.

(2.) The learned Sessions Judge Sikar vide his judgment dated March 16, 1981 convicted and sentenced the appellant Prahlad under section 302 Penal Code to suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 50.00. At the time of filing of the appeal an argument was advanced that the appellant was below 16 years of age on the date of occurrence i.e. June 17,1980, as such he was a child within the meaning of section 2(d) of the Rajasthan Children's Act, 1970 (for short 1970 Act). It was submitted that vide Notification dated Nov. 14, 1981 published in the Rajasthan Gazette, Extraordinary Part 1 (b) II dated 14.11.1989 at page No. 407, the Rajasthan Children's Act 1970 was made applicable to the Sikar District also and in view of section 26 of the said Act, the sentence awarded to the appellant deserved to be set aside. This court vide order dated Aug. 4, 1995 directed the Sessions Judge Sikar to make an enquiry under section 32(1) read with section 7(3) of 1970 Act for determining the age of the appellant on the date of occurrence i.e. June 27, 1980. The learned Sessions Judge conducted a detailed enquiry. The medical Board was constituted to examine the appellant and after recording the relevant evidence the learned Sessions Judge opined that the age of appellant on the date of the occurrence was 15 years and he was a child within the meaning of 1970 Act. Even otherwise the age of the appellant on July 5, 1980 as per his injury report Ex.P/12 was 15 and in his statement under section 313 Cr.RC. although he gave his age as 15 years the trial judge estimation was 16 to 17 years. Thus we are satisfied that the appellant was a child within the meaning of section 2(d) of 1970 Act on the date of occurrence.

(3.) Having carefully considered the prosecution evidence we find that the prosecution has established the charge under section 302 Penal Code against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt and he was rightly convicted by the learned trial judge but as the appellant was child within the meaning of 1970 Act he could not have sentenced to suffer imprisonment of life and fine of Rs. 50.00 in view of section 22 of 1970 Act provides thus -