Sanjeev @ Vishal vs State (Nct) Of Delhi
2010 Latest Caselaw 3740 Del

             THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                       Judgment delivered on: 11.08.2010

+           CRL. M. A. 13361/2010 & CRL.A 915/2009

SANJEEV @ VISHAL                                             ... Appellant

                                        - versus -

STATE (NCT) OF DELHI                                         ... Respondent

Advocates who appeared in this case:-

For the Appellant         : Mr A. J. Bhambhani with Ms Nisha Bhambhani, Ms Lakshita
                            Seth and Ms Sonia Raina
For the Respondent        : Ms Richa Kapoor

CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.K. JAIN

1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?

2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ?

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in Digest ?

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)

1. By way of this application, the appellant Sanjeev @ Vishal,

who is confined in Central Jail No. 2, Tihar, New Delhi and who has been

produced before us by virtue of production warrant, claims the benefit of the

Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (hereinafter

referred to as 'the said Act'). It is also prayed that the sentence dated

09.09.2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge be quashed and

the appellant be released as he was a juvenile at the time of the commission

of the offence.

2. The date of the offence in the present case is 16.04.2000. The

appellant's date of birth is said to be less than 18 years of age on the date of

the incident. If this is correct, he would be entitled to the benefit of the said

Act particularly in view of the provisions of Section 7A read with Section

20 thereof. In order to ascertain as to whether the appellant was actually a

juvenile on the date of the commission of the offence, a status report was

sought from the respondent/ State. The same was submitted and it is on

record that the school leaving certificate of the appellant was verified from

the Government Sarvodaya Bal Vidyalaya, K-Block, Mangolpuri, Delhi.

The Principal of the school issued a certificate dated 01.02.2010, according

to which the date of birth of the appellant, as per the school record, was

26.04.1982. The school leaving certificate was issued on 08.01.2001. It is,

therefore, apparent that the appellant was a juvenile on the date of the

offence, being less than 18 years of age.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant, on instructions from the

appellant, who is present in Court, submitted that the appellant admits the

finding recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge that he had

committed the offence. He consequently, does not press this appeal on

merits insofar as the findings are concerned but presses for the benefit to be

extended to him as per the said Act.

4. We find that co-accused Sundar @ Sanju also claimed that he

was a juvenile at the stage of appeal before this Court. By an order dated

23.04.2010, a Division Bench of this Court, while disposing of his

application and appeal, accepted his plea of juvenility and directed that he

be released on account of the fact that he had already undergone detention

for more than three years which was beyond the maximum period for which

a juvenile could be sentenced to a special home in terms of Section 15 of the

said Act.

5. In the present case, however, the appellant, although he is to be

regarded as a juvenile under the said Act, has not undergone the maximum

period of three years. However, the appellant has already undergone a

sentence for almost a period of two years. We have also examined the

impugned judgment and we find that the role ascribed to the appellant is

only of catching hold of the deceased and no injury is said to have been

caused by him.

6. Considering these circumstances as also the fact that the

appellant is now about 28 years old, it would not be appropriate to send him

to a special home and to keep him in the company of juveniles.

Consequently, we feel that it would be in the interest of justice that he is

directed to be released forthwith, provided that he is not required in any

other case. We make it clear once again that the finding with regard to the

commission of the offence is not challenged by the appellant and the same

stands. However, because of the fact that the appellant was a juvenile in

view of the provisions of the said Act, the sentence stands quashed. It is

further clarified that the appeals of the co-accused persons, who were not

juveniles within the meaning of the said Act on the date of the commission

of the offence, are to be dealt with on their own merits, unaffected by any of

the observations made in this order.

The application and the appeal stand disposed of.

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J

V.K. JAIN, J AUGUST 11, 2010 SR