ANIL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

(2.) Learned Public Prosecutor has chosen not to file reply to the application for suspension of sentence and argued the matter orally.

(3.) Learned counsel Shri Sanjay Mathur, representing the appellant applicant submitted that the accused was a minor on the date of the incident and the charge-sheet was filed in the Juvenile Justice Board. However, his case was sent for trial to the Children Court by treating him to be an adult for the purpose of trial under Section 302 I.P.C. by adverting to the procedure provided under Section 15 of the Juvenile Justice Act. He urged that as per the evidence of the sole eye-witness Smt.Hakri, the allegation of inflicting the first head injury to the deceased Naresh is attributed to the co-accused Ratan and the second blow has been attributed to the accused appellant applicant. He referred to the statement of the Medical Officer Dr.Babu Lal, who conducted post mortem upon the dead body of Naresh and issued the post-mortem report (Ex.P13) wherein, only a solitary head injury was noticed when the autopsy was carried out. He urged that going by the eye- witness account, the said solitary injury would obviously would be ascribable to the co-accused Ratan Devi. Shri Mathur submits that he has been apprised that Ratan Devi has been acquitted after trial by the Sessions Court concerned. He further urged that Dr.Babu Lal did not opine in his evidence that the head injury caused to the deceased was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. He thus urged that ex-facie, conviction of the accused appellant applicant as recorded by the trial court is grossly illegal, unjust and as a matter of fact, the learned trial court misread and mis-appreciated the evidence while convicting the appellant applicant for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. He thus implored the Court to suspend the sentences awarded to the appellant applicant during the pendency of the appeal. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by the counsel for the appellant-applicant. However, he too is not in a position to dispute the fact that as per the evidence of the sole eye-witness P.W.1 Smt.Hakri Devi, the first blow on the head of the deceased Anil was landed by Ratan and thereafter, the accused appellant is alleged to have inflicted the second head injury to him.