MADAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SINCE the controversy involved in the instant appeal attracts the provisions contained in the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (for short `the J. J. Act'), we proceed to dispose of the matter finally at the orders stage.

(2.) AS per the prosecution story, the appellant was indicted in criminal case registered at the police station Beawar on October 12, 1998. He was arrested and on completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed. In due course the case came up for trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Beawar. Charges under Sections 302/34, 307/34, 460/34, 459/34, and 324/34 IPC were framed against the appellant, who denied the charges and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 17 witnesses and got exhibited 36 documents. In his explanation under Section 313 Cr. P. C. , the appellant claimed innocence. No defence witness was, however, examined. On hearing the final submissions, the trial judge convicted and sentenced the appellant as under:- U/s. 302/34 IPC:, To suffer life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/. In default of payment of fine to further undergo 6 months' simple imprisonment. U/s. 460/34 IPC: , To suffer simple imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/. In default of payment of fine to further undergo three months' S. I. U/s. 458/34 IPC: , To suffer simple imprisonment for six years and to pay a fine of Rs. 400/. In default of payment of fine to further undergo two months' S. I. U/s. 324/34 IPC: , To undergo simple imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/. In default of payment of fine, to further undergo one month's S. I. All the substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently.

(3.) SECTION 6 of the JJ Act gives power to the Juvenile Board to deal exclusively with all proceedings under the JJ Act relating to the juvenile. Sub-section (2) of SECTION 6 of the JJ Act mandates that powers of Board may also be exercised by the High Court and the Court of Sessions when the proceedings come before them in appeal, revision or otherwise. On a close look at SECTION 15 and 16 of the JJ Act, we deem it appropriate that appellant Madan Singh, who was juvenile on the date of incident, should be dealt with by the Juvenile Board in accordance with the provisions of JJ Act.