Allahabad High Court
State Of U.P. vs Balraj Singh Alias Balraj And ... on 13 July, 2022
Bench: Suneet Kumar, Vikram D. Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?
Court No. - 48
Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 2845 of 1982
Appellant :- State of U.P.
Respondent :- Balraj Singh Alias Balraj And Others
Counsel for Appellant :- A.G.A.,A.K.Sharma
Counsel for Respondent :- S.K.Singh,Ajay Kumar Mishra,C.S. Saran,D.R.Chaudhary,Dileep Kumar,Rajrshi Gupta,Santosh Kumar Singh
Connected with
Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 2887 of 1982
Appellant :- State of U.P.
Respondent :- Balraj And Others
Counsel for Appellant :- A.G.A.
Counsel for Respondent :- Dileep Kumar,Dileep Kumar,Rajrshi Gupta
Hon'ble Suneet Kumar,J.
Hon'ble Vikram D. Chauhan,J.
These appeals have been placed before us after nomination by the Hon'ble The Chief Justice.
Heard Sri Om Prakash Mishra, learned AGA for the State, Sri Ajay Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the record.
These appeals have been filed against the judgment and order dated 26.8.1982 passed by Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Jhansi in S.T. No.147 of 1979 [State Vs. Balraj Singh (Balraj) and others].
As per the report obtained from the concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate, accused-respondent nos.3 and 4, namely, Ram Swaroop and Raja Ram have died. The appeals in respect of them have abated and order to that effect was passed earlier.
In so far as accused-respondent no.2 Deo Raj Singh @ Debar is concerned, as per the impugned judgment he is aged about 16 years and a minor, whereas the accused-respondent no.1 Balraj Singh alias Balraj is concerned, he is aged about 18 years.
We have perused the trial court record with the assistance of learned counsel for the parties. In the statements recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. of both the accused-respondents, their age have been recorded as 20 years and 15 years, respectively. The date of the incident of the crime is 28.5.1979, accordingly the first respondent, namely, Balraj Singh alias Balraj was approximately over 17 years and the second respondent, namely, Deo Raj Singh @ Debar was aged about 13 years.
Learned AGA on being confronted with Section 9(2) of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2015 submits that the person is a child or was a child on the date of the commission of crime, can raise before any Court at any stage, even after final disposal of the case, the claim of juvenility.
Section 9 (3) of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2015 provides that if the Court finds that a person has committed an offence and was a child on the date of commission of offence, the Court shall forward the child to the Board for passing appropriate orders and the sentence, if any, passed by the Court shall be deemed to have no effect.
Since 40 years have passed from the date of the impugned judgment and the trial court has recorded the approximate age of the accused-respondents in the impugned judgment, at this stage it would be a futile exercise to send the matter in respect of the first respondent, namely, Balraj Singh alias Balraj for passing appropriate order.
In so far as, the second respondent, namely, namely, Deo Raj Singh @ Debar is concerned, there is no dispute that he was a minor on the date of the incident. In the circumstances, nothing remains to be decided in the present appeal.
Accordingly, the Government Appeal No.2845 of 1982 is dismissed.
In so far as the Government Appeal No.2887 of 1982, the prayer made therein reads as under:
"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to allow the appeal, set aside the order of acquittal and convict and sentence them according to law.
It is further prayed that the bailable warrants be issued against the said accused-respondents according to law."
Learned AGA on being confronted with the prayer fairly admits that the appeal is misconceived, as there is no order of acquittal against the accused-respondents and submits that the appeal may be dismissed as not pressed.
Accordingly, the Government Appeal No.2887 of 1982 is dismissed as not pressed.
Order Date :- 13.7.2022
D. Tamang
