TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (1) TMI 913
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to Yaduraj Singh and Ors. v. State of U.P.1977CriLJ340 wherein this Court did not allow a new plea as to age of the accused to be raised for the first time in this Court. 3. In Sushil Kumar Mehrotra v. State of Uttar Pradesh 1984CriLJ990 , a similar plea was raised for the first time by the appellant- accused in this Court against his conviction for an offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 and 'of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). It was held that the contention of the accused that he was 15= years of age at the time of occurrence was 'a complete after thought' and refused to grant the benefit on that basis. 4. It is, no doubt, true that the provision is beneficial and benevolent in nature and no 'technical' objection should be raised that such plea was not taken before the Courts below. [Gopinath Ghosh v. State of West Bengal 1984CriLJ168 ]. But in my opinion, there must be credible and trustworthy evidence in support of such plea. In the present case, a certificate in the form of 'Scholar Record & Transfer Certificate' is annexed wherein the date of birth of the appellant was shown as June 28, 1962. The certificate was not on record e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he made any protest. Jagdish Prasad quietly handed over the money bag containing about Rs. 25,000/-. He also gave his wrist watch and a golden ring. Another occupant of the car was compelled to give cash of Rs. 230/- and the driver gave cash of Rs. 600/- to them. One person sitting in the car was forced to give his three wrist watches. The miscreants snatched away the keys of the car from its driver. One of the miscreants ran away on the scooter along with the money bag, while the remaining three boarded the car and fled away. On appreciation of the evidence brought on record, the Additional District & Sessions Judge found the accused persons guilty and imposed the punishment which was confirmed by the High Court as mentioned hereinabove. The accused appellant- Sudesh Kumar has preferred this appeal against the order of conviction and sentence. Shri K.T.S. Tulsi, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted only one point that the accused at the time of the commission of the crime was below 21 years of age which is apparent from the statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. of the accused wherein age of the accused was given by the accused as 20 years and fr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Act, broadly speaking, is to see that young offenders are not sent to jail for the commission of less serious offences mentioned therein because of grave risk to their attitude to life to which they are likely to be exposed as a result of their close association with the hardened and habitual criminals who may happen to be the inmates of the jail. The Court laid down that Section 6 places restrictions on the court's power to sentence a person under 21 years of age for the commission of crimes mentioned therein unless the court is satisfied that it is not desirable to deal with the offender under Sections 3 and 4 of the Act. The court is also required to record reasons for passing sentence of imprisonment on such offender. In another case in the matter of Satyabhan Kishore and Anr.v. The State of Bihar (1972) 3 SCC 350, this Court (a 3-Judge Bench) reiterated the principle laid down by the Court in Daulat Ram case (supra) and Shelat, J. speaking for the Court held that Section 6 lays down an injunction as distinguished from discretion under Sections 3 and 4 not to impose a sentence of imprisonment on an offender, unless reasons are recorded. From the aforesaid judgments, it ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ccused. The High Court repelled the contention holding that although the accused might have been under 21 years of age on the date of the offence, he was not a person under 21 years of age on the date when the Sessions Judge found him guilty and sentenced him to a term of imprisonment, and held that the crucial date on which the age had to be determined being not the date of offence but the date on which as a result of a finding of guilty sentence had to be passed against the accused. In the factual matrix of that case, this Court held as under: 6. Taking first the case of Ramji, the elder brother, we entirely agree with the High Court in their construction of Section 6. The question of the age of the person is relevant not for the purpose of determining his guilt but only for the purpose of the punishment which he should suffer for the offence of which he has been found, on the evidence, guilty. The object of the Act is to prevent the turning of youthful offenders into criminals by their association with hardened criminals of mature age within the walls of a prison. The method adopted is to attempt their possible reformation instead of inflicting on them the normal punishment fo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....his Court has observed that these Acts provide for the care, protection, treatment, development and rehabilitation of juveniles. The Acts being benevolent legislations, such interpretation must be given which would advance the cause of the legislations, i.e. to give benefit to juveniles. Section 2(l) of the 2000 Act defines `juvenile in conflict with law' as meaning a juvenile who is alleged to have committed an offence. The definition of `delinquent juvenile' in the 1986 Act is referable to an offence said to have been committed by him. It is the date of offence that he was conflict with law. When a juvenile is produced before the competent authority and/or court, he has not committed an offence on that date, but he was brought before the authority for the alleged offence which he has been found guilty to have committed. Therefore, what was implicit in the 1986 Act has been made explicit in the 2000 Act. Sinha, J. in his concurring judgment said that having regard to the constitutional and statutory scheme it was not necessary for Parliament to specifically state that the age of juvenile must be determined as on the date of commission of the offence and the same is inbuilt....