Delhi High Court
Raj Kumar vs The State (G.N.C.T Of Delhi) on 18 May, 2015
Author: S. P. Garg
$-8
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
DECIDED ON : 18th MAY, 2015
+ CRL.A.No.1157/2012 & CRL.M.A.No.17512/2012
RAJ KUMAR ..... Appellant
Through : Mr.Jatin Rajput, Advocate with
Mr. Anupam Dubey, Advocate.
versus
THE STATE (G.N.C.T OF DELHI) ..... Respondent
Through : Ms.Kusum Dhalla, APP.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG
S.P.Garg, J. (Oral)
1. The appellant - Raj Kumar impugns a judgment dated
03.01.2012 of learned Addl. Sessions Judge in Sessions Case
No.102/2010 arising out of FIR No.181/2010 under Section 363 IPC
(subsequently Sections 342/366/376 IPC added) registered at Police
Station Samay Pur Badli by which he was held guilty for committing
offences under Sections 342/366/376(1) IPC. By an order dated
07.01.2012, he was awarded various prison terms with fine.
2. Allegations against the appellant as reflected in the charge-
sheet were that on 02.07.2010 at about 10.00 p.m. near Shochalaya near
jhuggi No.778, J.J.Camp, Badli, Delhi, he kidnapped 'X' (assumed name)
aged 12 years from lawful guardianship of her parents and confined her in
a room at Malka Ganja Road near Ghanta Ghar Kamla Nagar, Delhi and
thereafter, committed rape upon her. FIR was registered under Section
363 IPC on getting missing person report. During investigation, the
appellant was apprehended and arrested. 'X' was recovered; she recorded
her 164 Cr.P.C. statement. She was medically examined. Statements of
witnesses conversant with the facts were recorded. Exhibits were sent to
Forensic Science Laboratory for examination. After completion of
investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the appellant. The
prosecution examined 11 witnesses to prove its case. In 313 statement,
the appellant denied his involvement in the crime and pleaded false
implication. The appellant examined DW-1 (Sat Narayan) in defence. The
trial resulted in his conviction as aforesaid. Being aggrieved and
dissatisfied, the appellant has preferred the instant appeal.
3. During the course of arguments, Crl.M.A.No.17512/2012
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking directions for conducting ossification
test of the appellant under the provisions of Juvenile Justice Act, 2008
read with Section 7-A of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of
Children) Act, 2000 was filed by the appellant claiming juvenility on the
day of incident. In response to notice, State filed status report. Order
dated 12.12.2014 of learned Metropolitan Magistrate under Section 7-A of
the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2000 has been
received from the Trial Court regarding appellant's age. As per bone
enquiry conducted by Metropolitan Magistrate-02 (North), Rohini Courts,
Delhi, age of the appellant has been ascertained as 15 years and 7 months
on the day of occurrence. The enquiry report has not been challenged by
the State. Apparently, on the day of incident, the appellant was below 18
years of age and was juvenile. As per nominal roll, the appellant is in
custody for the last more than five years.
4. Considering the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in 'Mohan Mali & Anr. vs. State of Madhya Pradesh', (2010) 6 SCC 669,
in para 12,13 and 14 and having regard to the fact that the appellant - Raj
Kumar was minor on the date of commission of offence and has already
undergone more than the maximum sentence provided under Section 15 of
the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2000, by
applying the provisions of Rule 98 of the Juvenile Justice (Care &
Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 read with Section 15 and 64 of the
Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2000, appeal filed
by the appellant is allowed. Pending application also stands disposed of.
The appellant be released forthwith if not required to be detained in any
other criminal case.
5. Trial Court record along with a copy of this order be sent
back forthwith. A copy of the order be sent to Jail Superintendent, Tihar
Jail for intimation.
(S.P.GARG)
JUDGE
MAY 18, 2015 / tr
