Suresh Mahadu Urade ) currently v. The State of Maharashtra )
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 44. In Criminal Appeal No.750 of 2004 with Criminal Application No.420 of 2008 we have decided the issues of law as to what is the date which has to be considered for the applicant to get the benefit under the provisions of the Juvenile Justice…
Judgment
Cause title
Dr. Y.M. Choudary, for the Appellant/Applicant.
Mr. P.S. Hingorani, APP for the State.
CORAM: F.I.
CORAM: F.I. REBELLO REBELLO &&&
CORAM: F.I. REBELLO K.U.CHANDIWAL, JJ. K.U.CHANDIWAL, JJ. K.U.CHANDIWAL, JJ. DATED: 2ND MAY 2008 DATED: 2ND MAY 2008 DATED: 2ND MAY 2008
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER F.I. REBELLO, J.):
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER F.I. REBELLO, J.): ORAL JUDGMENT (PER F.I. REBELLO, J.): . The Appellant herein has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 and sentenced to suffer R.I. for life and to pay fine of Rs.500/- or in default to suffer further R.I. for one month. The Appellant does not challenge his conviction. However, he has moved an application being Criminal Application No.421 of 2008 contending that on the date of the offence he was a "Juvenile in conflict with law" and consequently as he has undergone a period of more than 3 years which is the maximum order that could have been passed under Section 15 of the the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 he should be set forth at liberty at once.
According to the Applicant his date of birth is 5th January, 1979. For that purpose he relies on the birth certificate issued by the State of Maharashtra as also the School Leaving Certificate. The learned A.P.P. has taken instructions and has got the same verified and confirms that the documents are genuine.
In the instant case the offence took place on 1st June, 1996. Considering the date of birth the Appellant/Applicant would be aged 17 years 4 months and 26 days.
In Criminal Appeal No.750 of 2004 with Criminal Application No.420 of 2008 we have decided the issues of law as to what is the date which has to be considered for the applicant to get the benefit under the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Amendment Act, 2006. We have held that it would be the date of the offence. Considering that the Appellant would have been 17 years 4 months 26 days on the date of offence and would, therefore, fall within the definition of Juvenile in conflict with law. In the light of that the Appeal and Application are disposed of with the following directions:- (a) The conviction of the Appellant/Applicant under Section 302 of I.P.C. is confirmed. (b) In so far as sentence is concerned, as the Appellant/Applicant has already undergone imprisonment of more than 3 years, the maximum provided under Section 15 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 the Appellant/Applicant is directed to be released forthwith if not required in any other matter. (c) Appeal disposed of accordingly. Application is allowed. (K.U.CHANDIWAL, J.) (K.U.CHANDIWAL, J.) (F.I.REBELLO, J.) (F.I.REBELLO, J.) (K.U.CHANDIWAL, J.)
(F.I.REBELLO, J.)
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 — s. 15; Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 302.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 02 May 2008. The bench was K U CHANDIWAL, F I REBELLO.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.