Jharkhand High Court
Upen Nag @ Upendra Nag vs The State Of Jharkhand on 8 July, 2022
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 657 of 2016
[Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 31.05.2016 and
4.6.2016, passed by Shri Bipin Bihari, learned Sessions Judge, Khunti in S.T.
No. 12 of 2014.
----------
Upen Nag @ Upendra Nag, S/o Shri Mangal Nag, R/o village-Takra, P.S. Khunti,
District-Khunti, Jharkhand. .....Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand. ....Respondent
--------
For the Appellant : Mr. K.S. Nanda, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr.Abhay Kumar Tiwari, A.P.P.
--------
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
--------
14/8.7.2022 Heard the parties.
The appellant has been convicted for the offences under sections 302/34
of the Indian Penal Code and Section 25(i-b)(a), 26 and 27 read with section 35
of the Arms Act and has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life along
with a fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence under section 302/34 of IPC, rigorous
imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs.5,000/-for the offence under section
25(i-b)(a) of the Arms Act, rigorous imprisonment for five years with a fine of
Rs.5000/-for the offence under section 26 of the Arms Act and rigorous
imprisonment for five years along with a fine of Rs.5,000/-for the offence under
section 27 (i) read with section 25 of the Arms Act.
During the pendency of this appeal, the appellant has filed I.A. No.2553 of
2020 claiming therein that on the date of occurrence i.e. 24.5.2013, the appellant
was a juvenile and this plea was not taken in the trial. The appellant had earlier
prayed for declaring him as a juvenile in I.A. No. 3067 of 2019, which however
was dismissed on 8.5.2019 on the ground that the birth certificate, which has
been relied upon by the appellant, was obtained after his conviction.
Subsequently, as stated above, I.A. No. 2553 of 2000 was preferred by the
appellant with a claim that the appellant was a juvenile on the date of occurrence
and in support of his contention, he had brought on record the birth certificate
issued on 16.02.2019. Vide order dated 25.02.2022, the matter was remitted to
the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Khunti, who was directed to
enquire into the matter and submit a report to this Court within a month. The
appellant was also directed to submit the entire documents in the court below
and participate in the enquiry to be held by the learned Principal Magistrate,
Juvenile Justice Board, Khunti. The report of the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile
Justice Board, Khunti has been received along with the order dated 11.04.2022
passed in the enquiry by the Juvenile Justice Board. The report indicates that
the appellant was found to be aged 13 years on the date of occurrence i.e. on
24.05.2013. Thus, the appellant has been held to be a juvenile on the date of
occurrence. The Lower Court Records reveals that the appellant is in custody
since 28.01.2014, which is much more than three years, which is the maximum
period of imprisonment provided under section 18 of the Juvenile Justice (Care
and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. We, therefore, in view of the enquiry report
and the order of the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Khunti
accept the appellant as a juvenile on the date of the occurrence i.e.24.05.2013.
Mr. K.S. Nanda, learned counsel for the appellant, has submitted that he
is confining his submission only with respect to the sentence of the appellant
since he has been declared a juvenile by conducting an enquiry.
In view of the aforesaid facts, we are maintaining the conviction of the
appellant as per the judgement dated 31.05.2016, passed in S.T. No. 12 of 2014.
We hereby modify the order of sentence dated 4.6.2016 imposed by the learned
trial court against the appellant and confine the imprisonment of the appellant-
Upen Nag @ Upendra Nag to a maximum period of three years as provided
under section 15 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children)
Act,2000. Since the appellant has already suffered imprisonment far more than
the period prescribed under the statute, he is directed to be released and set at
liberty forthwith if his detention is not required in any other case.
This appeal is accordingly disposed of by upholding the conviction and
modifying the sentence passed by the learned trial court.
( Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J)
(Rajesh Kumar, J)
High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi
Dated, the 8th July, 2022.
Rakesh/NAFR
