Gauhati High Court
Toko Runel vs The Chief Secretary To The Govt Of Assam ... on 28 June, 2024
Page No.# 1/5
GAHC010137552023
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : W.P.(Crl.)/25/2023
TOKO RUNEL
S/O- LATE TOKO PEKHI
R/O- NIRJULI BAGE TINIALI
NEAR VKV SCHOOL
NIRJULI
DISTRICT- PAPUM PARE
ARUNACHAL PRADESH- 791109.
VERSUS
THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM AND 7 ORS
HOME AND POLITICAL DEPARTMENT
ASSAM SECRETARIAT
DISPUR- 781006
GUWAHATI.
2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM
THE LEGAL REMEMBRANCER DEPARTMENT
ASSAM SECRETARIAT
DISPUR- 781006
GUWAHATI.
3:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
LAKHIMPUR
NORTH LAKHIMPUR
ASSAM- 787001.
4:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
PAPUM PARE
ARUNACHAL PRADESH- 791113.
5:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
CAPITAL COMPLEX
ITANAGAR- 791110
Page No.# 2/5
ARUNACHAL PRADESH.
6:THE REGISTRAR OF BIRTH AND DEATH
ITANAGAR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
NAHARLAGUN- 79111
ARUNACHAL PRADESH.
7:DIRECTOR OF ECONOMICS AND STATISTICS
YUPIA
PAPUM PARE- 791110
ARUNACHAL PRADESH.
8:KIPA ACHOK
FATHER OF CICL Y
R/O- VILLAGE- NIRJULI E SECTOR
P.S.- NIRJULI
DIST.- PAPUM PARE
ARUNACHAL PRADESH- 791109.
------------
Advocate for : MS. S G BARUAH
Advocate for : GA
ASSAM appearing for THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM AND
7 ORS
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY
ORDER
Date : 28-06-2024
1. Heard Ms. S.G. Baruah learned counsel for the petitioner.
Also heard Mr. D Nath learned senior Govt. advocate appearing for
respondent Nos.1 to 3, Mr. NNB Choudhury learned additional
Advocate General, Arunachal Pradesh, Mr. A Chandran learned counsel
appearing for respondent Nos.4 to 7 and Mr. D.K. Medhi learned
counsel for respondent No.8.
2. This writ petition arises out of Sessions case
No.50(NL)/2023, pending in the court of learned Addl. District and
Page No.# 3/5
Sessions Judge (FTC), Lakhimpur, North Lakhimpur.
3. The basic challenge in this writ petition is made against
the order dated 30.12.2021, passed by the Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Lakhimpur, North Lakhimpur in GR Case No.4465/2021
and also against the order dated 11.05.2023 passed by the Principle
Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Lakhimpur, North Lakhimpur,
whereby the learned Court dismissed the petition being the petition
No.301/2022 filed by the respondent No.8. The challenge is also
made to the manner and procedure adopted while determining the
juvenility of the alleged Child in Conflict with Law (hereinafter referred
to as CICL), allegedly involved in commission of crime in connection
with Laluk PS Case No.400/2021 under section 302/34 IPC. The CICL
is the son of respondent No.8 in this writ petition.
4. The facts of the present case is similar to the facts of the
case of WP(Crl) No.24/2023 inasmuch as, the son of the respondent
No.8 in WP(Crl) No.25/2023 is also an accused in Laluk PS Case
No.400/2021 under section 302/34 IPC and like the son of the
respondent No.8 in WP(Crl) 24/2023, the son of the respondent No.8
herein also claims to be a juvenile. The petitioner in WP(Crl) 24/2023
& WP(Crl) 25/2023 is the same person and his grievance is also the
same i.e., the challenge to the manner and method of determination
of juvenility of the sons of respondent No.8 in both the cases.
5. In the aforesaid backdrop the learned counsel for the
parties submits that the determination made in WP(Crl) 24/2023 shall
also cover the present case. Accordingly, it is submitted that the
present petition may be disposed of in terms of the aforesaid WP(Crl)
Page No.# 4/5
24/2023, by setting aside the impugned order(s) 30.12.2021 &
11.05.2023, with a further direction to have a fresh enquiry as regards
the juvenility of the son of the respondent No.8.
6. Considered the submissions advanced by the learned
counsel for the parties. Also perused the material available on record.
There is no doubt that the sons of both the respondent No.8 are
accused in Laluk PS Case No.400/2021 under section 302/34 IPC.
The fact also remains that both the accused claims to be juvenile and
they have been held to be juvenile in the same proceeding.
7. It is also an admitted position that the present petitioner
is an informant of the said Laluk police station case, in which two
minor sons of the petitioner was allegedly killed by the two alleged
juvenile and another accused. It is also undisputed that the
determination made by the JJB and the learned Addl. CJM are also on
same ground and the orders are similar in nature, though the dates of
the orders are different. Therefore, in principle the determination
made as regards the illegality in the procedure adopted by the JJB as
well as the learned Addl. CJM are same. Therefore, the decision
rendered in WP(Crl) 24/2023 shall also cover the present case.
8. Accordingly, for the reasons recorded in WP(Crl) 24/2023,
the impugned orders dated 30.12.2021 & 11.05.2023 are set aside
and the Juvenile Justice Board, North Lakhimpur shall proceed afresh
under section 14 of the Act to determine the juvenility of the two
accused alleged to be child in conflict with law and thereafter pass
order under section 17 and 18 of the act as the case may be. While
doing so, if necessity arises the Board shall also do the needful in
Page No.# 5/5
terms of section 15 of the Act. The entire proceeding be completed
within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of a certified
copy of this judgment and order.
9. It is further provided that till completion of the aforesaid
exercise, the proceeding of Sessions Case No.50(NL)/2023 pending in
the court of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC),
Lakhimpur, North Lakhimpur shall remain suspended and the trial shall
proceed on the basis of the determination of the Juvenile Justice
Board.
10. In terms of the determination made hereinabove, the writ
petition stands allowed.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
