VIKRAM @ BANGALI Vs. STATE OF RAJ.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant Vikrarn @ Bengali was indicted before the learned Additional Sessions Judge Behror District Alwar in Sessions Case No. 17/1998 for having committed murder of Anand Kumar. Learned Judge vide judgment dated Sept. 27, 1999 convicted and sentenced the appellant as under:- <FRM>JUDGEMENT_73_LAWS(RAJ)2_2004_1.html</FRM> The sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) On the basis of written report (Ex.P-1) submitted on March 7. 1998 by Radhey Shyam (PW2) that the dead body of Anand Kumar was lying in the field of Nand Lai Aheer. Police Station Behror District Alwar registered a case under Sec. 302 Penal Code and investigation commenced. Dead body of Anand Kumar was subjected to autopsy, statements of witnesses under Sec. 161 Cr.PC. were recorded, appellant was arrested and at his instance the incriminating articles were recovered. On conclusion of investigation charge sheet was filed against the appellant. In due course the case came up for trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge Behror District Alwar. Charges under Sections 302 and 392 Penal Code were framed against the appellant who denied the charges and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of its case examined as many as witnesses. in his explanation under Sec. 313 CrP.C., the appellant claimed innocence. No witness in defence was however examined. The learned Trail Judge on hearing final submissions convicted and sentenced the appellant as indicated herein above.

(3.) The findings of learned trial Judge have not been assailed by learned Amicus Curiae on merits. The only contention of learned counsel is that in view of Sec. 2(k) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2000 (for short 'JJ Act') the appellant who was juvenile on the date of occurrence could not have been ordered to undergo imprisonment in view of Sec. 20 of the JJ Act. Learned counsel in support of his contention took us to the statement of Dr. B.L. Gupta (PW23) who was a Radiologist and examined the appellant on March 10, 1998. As per the Radiology Report (Ex.P28) the Efifysis of the right wrist and elbow of the appellant were not fused and appellant was below 17 years of age.