Vijay Kumar Yadav vs State Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi
2011 Latest Caselaw 649 Del

*            HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI

                           Judgment delivered on: 03.02.2011

+          CRL.A. 978 of 2010 & CRL. M.A. 18803/2010

VIJAY KUMAR YADAV                                       ......Appellant


                                 Versus


STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI                        ......Respondent


Advocates who appeared in this case :-

For The Appellant:               Mr P.K. Dey and Mr Kaushik Dey.

For The Respondent:              Mr Sanjay       Lao,     Addl.     Standing
                                 Counsel.

Coram:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH

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

2. To be referred to Reporter or not?

3. Whether the judgment should be reported
   in the Digest?

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J. (ORAL)

Crl M.A. 18803/2010 & Crl. A. 978/2010

1. Crl. M.A. 18803/2010 is an application filed by the appellant

claiming that he was a juvenile on the date of the incident, i.e., on

03.10.2006. Along with the application, the appellant has annexed a

school leaving certificate which shows his date of birth to be 02.01.1989.

On a previous date, we had directed the learned counsel for the State to

have the said school certificate verified as also the date of the birth of the

appellant as appearing in the record of the said school. A status report

dated 27.01.2011 furnished by the Station House Officer of Police Station

Civil Lines, Delhi-110 054, has been filed on behalf of the

respondent/State. As per the said status report, the school transfer

certificate of the appellant Vijay Kumar Yadav, son of Sh. Santosh

Kumar Yadav, resident of Village Kasba Tali Ko Purva, Post Office-

KNL, PS-Sultanpur, Distt. Sultanpur, UP, has been verified from the

Jagrani Devi Vidhya Mandir Junior High School, Sultanpur, UP and the

said transfer certificate has been found to be genuine. Along with the

status report, the certificate given by the principal Sh. Devi Prasad Tiwari

of the said school dated 20.01.2011 is also annexed along with an English

translation thereof. As per the said certificate, the appellant had taken

admission in Class VIII in the said school on 31.08.2000 and left the

school on 21.05.2001 and his enrollment was deleted from the said school

on 30.06.2001. It is also certified that as per the record of the school, the

appellant's date of birth was 02.01.1989.

2. In view of the foregoing, and in furtherance of the procedure

to be followed in determination of the age of a juvenile as prescribed

under Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children)

Rules, 2007, the age of the appellant has been determined to be seventeen

years, nine months and one day on the date of the incident. This would

qualify the appellant to be a juvenile as defined under Section 2(k) of the

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

juvenile has been defined to mean a person who has not completed 18

years of age.

3. As per Section 16(1) of the said Act, notwithstanding anything

to the contrary contained in any other law for the time being in force, no

juvenile in conflict with law can be sentenced to death or imprisonment

for any term which may extend to imprisonment for life. The proviso

after Section 16(2) also stipulates that the period of detention in a place of

safety or under protective custody as provided in Section 16(1) and 16(2)

shall not in any case exceed the maximum period as provided under

Section 15 of the said Act.

4. Section 15(1)(g) stipulates that the Board may direct a juvenile

to be sent to a special home for period of three years. Thus, the

maximum period of such detention, in any event, cannot be beyond a

period of three years.

5. As per the nominal roll, the appellant has already been in

custody for a period of 4 years 3 months 25 days as on 01.02.2011 which

is far in excess of the maximum period of three years as stipulated under

the said Act.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant does not challenge the

order of conviction and requests that the benefit of being a juvenile be

given to the appellant in so far as the sentence is concerned.

Consequently, we do not disturb the impugned judgment in so far as the

conviction is concerned. But, since the appellant, being a juvenile on the

date of the incident, could not have been subjected to a period of

incarceration in excess of three years as per the provisions of the said

Act, his sentence is accordingly reduced to the maximum period of three

years. Since he has already spent more time than the sentence that could

have been awarded to him, he is directed to be released forthwith. This

application and the appeal, in so far as the appellant Vijay Kumar Yadav

is concerned, stands disposed of.

7. A copy of this order be sent to the Superintendent of the

concerned jail for compliance.

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J

MANMOHAN SINGH, J FEBRUARY 03, 2011 dp/jk