PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Vs. NAGAPPA PUJARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the Crown against the acquittal of the accused 1 to 3 under Section 302, Indian Penal Code. The learned Public Prosecutor argued that on the facts the first accused should have been convicted under Part I of Section 304. But on the facts as found by us he rightly conceded that the offence should fall more appropriately under Section 335. There is no particular reason why a differentiation should be made between the first accused and accused 2 and 3. They combined together and beat the deceased, and the evidence does not show that the first accused gave any particular blows which caused the death of the deceased. Indeed the evidence shows that he beat the deceased on the head, whereas the medical evidence shows that the deceased did not die of the wounds on the head. Further it is also in evidence that the rice pounder M.O. 3, was broken into two pieces, and it is impossible to say who used the other bit and with which bit the major wounds were caused. We therefore modify the sentence of the first accused also and convict him under Section 335 of the Indian Indian Penal Code and sentence him to the period already undergone.

(2.) Before we close the judgment, it is necessary to make an observation in regard to the view expressed by the Sessions Judge on the scope of Section 8 of the Madras. Borstal Schools "Act. The learned Judge observed as follows: The first accused is a lad who, according to his own statement, is aged 16 years, and according to the medical evidence is aged between 16 and 18. There is no evidence that he has criminal tendencies or bad associations. He evidently committed the offence under provocation and in the heat of passion and not on account of any criminal tendencies. I do not consider, therefore, that Section 8 of the Madras Borstal Schools Act can be properly applied to him. The condition precedent to the application of Section 8 is that the adolescent offender should have criminal habits or tendencies or association with persons of bad character. If the learned Judge's interpretation of that section were to be accepted, it would mean that a person who has no criminal tendencies would be sent to the ordinary jail, whereas a person with criminal tendencies will be sent to the Borstal School. This interpretation would defeat the object of the Act itself. If a person without criminal tendencies is sent to a jail there is a greater danger of his contamination by his association with hardened criminals, whereas the object of the Act is to send such people to a Borstal School, so that they may have good training and come out of it to become useful citizens. The words " criminal tendencies " should not be given a narrow interpretation. If a boy had no criminal tendencies he would not be convicted of any crime at all. The fact that a boy is convicted for one offence or other under the Indian Penal Code shows in the view of the Court convicting him that he has criminal tendencies. We would interpret the section to mean that whenever an adolescent was convicted of an offence ordinarily he should be given the advantage of being put in the Borstal School so that by long association and training he would come out. after the termination of the stay as a useful citizen of the country.

(3.) The appeal is dismissed. Mack, J.