SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Praveen vs State Of Haryana on 13 December, 2019

CRR-1113-2018(OM) [1]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH

Criminal Revision No.1113 of 2018(OM)
Date of Decision: December 13, 2019

Praveen …Petitioner

Versus

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 :::
CRR-1113-2018(OM) [2]

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 :::
CRR-1113-2018(OM) [3]

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)
gian JUDGE

Whether Speaking / Reasoned Yes

Whether Reportable Yes / No

3 of 3
22-12-2019 22:55:55 :::

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2020 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation