Punjab-Haryana High Court
Mukesh Kumar Alias Mukesh vs State Of Haryana And Others on 27 July, 2023
2023:PHHC:095985
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
229 CRWP-8475-2022 (O & M)
Date of Decision: July 27, 2023
MUKESH KUMAR ALIAS MUKESH --___......... PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS .... RESPONDENTS
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL
Present: Mr.Ramnish Puri, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Gurmeet Singh, AAG, Haryana.
3K OK 3K ok
ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL, J (ORAL)
The petitioner has challenged the order dated 04.03.2022
(Anneuxure P-3) whereby his case for premature release has been rejected.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was a
juvenile on the date of occurrence which took place on 16.12.1995. His date of
birth is 08.08.1978 and, therefore, he was 17 years, 04 months and 03 days on
the date of the incident. He has referred to the copy of the school leaving
certificate from Government Middle School, District Sonipat at Annexure P-5.
He submits that the issue of juvenility could not be raised earlier as the family
members are illiterate. He has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court
in Abuzar Hossain @ Gulam Hossain versus State of West Bengal,
Criminal Appeal No.1193 of 2006 decided on 10.10.2012; Hari Ram versus
State of Rajasthan, Criminal Appeal No.907 of 2009 decided on 05.05.2009
AMIT KAUNDAL
2023.07.28 15:31
| attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh
2023:PHHC:095985
and Pratap Singh versus State of Jharkhand, Criminal Appeal No.210 of
2005 decided on 02.02.2005, to submit that the issue of juvenility of the
accused can be raised at any time in any proceeding before any Court.
3. Learned State counsel submits that the case of the petitioner for
premature release had been rejected as the petitioner had already undergone
actual sentence of 09 years and total sentence of 16 years but he is required to
undergo actual sentence of 14 years and total sentence of 20 years with
remissions. The allegations against the petitioner were serious and there were
several injuries on the person of the deceased and, therefore, the case of the
petitioner had fallen under the definition of 'heinous crime'.
4. Heard. The petitioner is stated to have been convicted in FIR
No.371 dated 16.12.1995, under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo life
imprisonment vide judgment and order of sentence dated 26/27.11.2002
(Annexure P-1). The incident had taken place on 16.12.1995. The petitioner
ought to have raised the issue of juvenility before the trial Court at an earlier
stage. However, the petitioner could not be ousted on this ground alone as it is
well settled that the issue of juvenility can be raised before any Court at any
stage. The date of birth of the petitioner as per the school leaving certificate is
stated to be 08.08.1978. The school leaving certificate had been issued by the
Government Middle School, Sandal Kalan, District Sonipat (Annexure P-5). It
is, thus, apparent that the petitioner has been able to make out a prima facie
case with regard to his juvenility.
AMIT KAUNDAL
2023.07.28 15:31
| attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh
2023:PHHC:095985
5. Consequently, the impugned order dated 04.03.2022 (Annexure
P-3) is set aside. The case is referred to the Juvenile Justice Board in terms of
Section 7A(2) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act,
2000 to determine the question of juvenility in accordance with law
expeditiously preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt
of certified copy of this order.
6. The petition stands disposed of.
(ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL)
JUDGE
July 27, 2023
A.Kaundal
Whether speaking/ reasoned: Yes/No
Whether Reportable : Yes/No
AMIT KAUNDAL
2023.07.28 15:31
| attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh
