IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Criminal Revision No.1113 of 2018(OM)
Date of Decision: December 13, 2019
State of Haryana …Respondent
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARINDER SINGH SIDHU
Present: – Mr.Prithvi Raj Yadav, Advocate
for the applicant – petitioner.
Mr.Saurav Girdhar, DAG, Haryana.
HARINDER SINGH SIDHU, J.
The applicant-petitioner herein was tried for commission of
offence punishable under Sections 377 and Section506 IPC in case bearing FIR
No.33 dated 25.03.2010 registered at Police Station Rohrai, District Rewari
and was convicted and sentenced to three years rigorous imprisonment for
the offence under Section 377 IPC and two years rigorous imprisonment for
the offence under Section 506 IPC, by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class,
Kosli on 21/24.08.2015. Both the sentences were ordered to run
concurrently. Appeal filed by him was dismissed by learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Rewari vide judgment dated 8.2.2018.
The petitioner filed the instant Revision Petition challenging the
said judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by learned trial
Judge and judgment recorded by learned Appellate Court.
During the pendency of the revision petition, the petitioner filed
1 of 3
22-12-2019 22:55:54 :::
an application under Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of
Children) Rules, 2007 (for short, “2007 Rules”) read with Section 102 of the
Juvenile Justice (Care and SectionProtection of Children) Act, 2015 (for short,
“2015 Act”) for declaring him as ‘juvenile’ and to set-aside order dated
26.04.2011 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Rewari, whereby, he was
declared major on the date of commission of the offence. The said
application bearing CRM-10656-2018 was disposed vide order dated
25.01.2019. The order dated 26.04.2011 passed by the Juvenile Justice
Board, Rewari was set aside. The Board was asked to make an enquiry
regarding the age of the petitioner. Pursuant thereto, the Juvenile Justice
Board submitted its report, as per which it was determined that the petitioner
was 17 years 03 months 24 days on 24.03.2010. Accordingly, he was less
than 18 years of age on the day of commission of the said offence.
The order dated 25.01.2019 was impugned by the complainant
by filing Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Diary No.13110 of 2019 which
was disposed of on 22.07.2019. Considering that after the passing of the
order dated 25.01.2019 the Juvenile Justice Board had passed an order
declaring the petitioner herein as juvenile, the SLP was got dismissed as
withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner therein to approach the appropriate
forum in accordance with the 2015 Act to challenge the order of the Juvenile
Justice Board and also to file a fresh SLP if she was aggrieved.
Nothing has been come on record to indicate that the order of
the Juvenile Justice Board declaring the petitioner herein as ‘juvenile’ has
been challenged or set aside.
Thus, it is held that the petitioner was a ‘juvenile’ in terms of the
2000 Act as on the day of the commission of the offence.
2 of 3
22-12-2019 22:55:55 :::
The conviction of the appellant of the petitioner is upheld, but
the sentence is set aside. The matter is remitted to the jurisdictional Juvenile
Justice Board for determining the quantum of sentence by treating the
petitioner as ‘juvenile’. The concerned Juvenile Justice Board would also
take into consideration the sentence already undergone by the petitioner.
December 13, 2019 (HARINDER SINGH SIDHU)
Whether Speaking / Reasoned Yes
Whether Reportable Yes / No
3 of 3
22-12-2019 22:55:55 :::