1.Vijendra Kumar Singh 2.Srikant Singh 3.Ashok Singh 4.Chandradeo Singh v. 1.The State of Jharkhand 2.Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Case Details
1 W.P.(Cr.) No. 89 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI ---- W.P.(Cr.) No. 89 of 2015 ---- 1.Vijendra Kumar Singh 2.Srikant Singh 3.Ashok Singh 4.Chandradeo Singh .... Petitioners -- Versus -- 1.The State of Jharkhand 2.Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi ---- .... Respondents
Legal Reasoning
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI For the Petitioners For the State :- :- --- Mr. Akshansh Kishore, Advocate Ms. Shivani Kapoor, Advocate ---- 6/06.07.2023 This petition has been filed for quashing of the judgment dated 17.06.2005 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Latehar in Sessions Case No.171 of 1989 and 171-A of 1989 by which the learned court has been pleased to jointly try and convict the petitioners who were declared to be juveniles along with other accused persons. The prayer is also made to quash the judgment dated 17.07.2005 passed by learned A.C.J.M., Latehar in S.T. No.171 of 89/Juvenile Trial No.96 of 2005 and all the consequential orders and quashing the memo no.264 dated 07.02.2006 issued by the Under Secretary, Government of Jharkhand. 2. On the basis of written information dated 23.05.1988 of one Kailash Sao, Latehar P.S.Case No.57 of 1988 corresponding to G.R. No.257 of 1988 was registered. It was alleged that on 23.5.1988 at about 8:00 am, members of paliar community slapped one Sakendra Sao and confined him to adjacent house. Thereafter about 100 members of the said community assembled and set fire to the house of Harihar Sah due to which alarm was raised and the informant along with 20-25 persons of his community assembled there. One Arjun Sao and Bijul Sao took out their guns to meet the threat of paliar community but in the meantime, one Surya Deo Singh caught hold gun of Arjun Sao and Kunjlal Singh looted the gun of Bijul Sao. Bijul Sao took shelter in the house of Sheo 2 W.P.(Cr.) No. 89 of 2015 Prasad Sao and the informant took shelter of the house of Mahabir Thakur in order to save their lives. The member of paliar community started assaulting with deadly weapons. The informant came out of the house on arrival of police and learnt that Arjun Sao, Bijul Sao, Bhola Sao, Sanjay Sao, Sheo Prasad Sao, Mohar Sao and Ram Vilas Sao have been killed by the members of paliar community and from paliar community one Satya Narayan Singh was killed. The other members of the informant’s community also sustained injuries. The occurrence took place on account of fact that one Uday Giri had scuffle with Sakendra Sao due to which Sakendra Sao was assaulted by the paliar community and thereafter set fire. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that after investigation the charge sheet has been submitted on 17.8.1988 against the accused persons including the petitioners and were sent up for trial. The learned SDJM, Latehar took cognizance against the accused persons on 18.8.1988 and committed to the court of Sessions for trial and disposal. He submits that there was a case and counter case as much as the member of other party namely Surya Deo Singh had lodged an FIR being Latehar P.S.Case No.58 of 1988, corresponding to G.R. No.258 of 1988. He submits that so far the petitioners are concerned at the time of crime they were aged about 16 years i.e. on 23.05.1988. The plea was taken before the learned court that they were juvenile by order dated 03.8.2004. The learned Sessions Judge directed the learned A.C.J.M., Latehar cum Juvenile Court to hold an enquiry as to whether the petitioners were juvenile on the date of occurrence or not. The learned ACJM, Latehar cum Juvenile Court reported that the petitioners were juvenile by an order dated 9.2.2005. Looking to the report by order dated 9.2.2005 the petitioners were declared juvenile. He submits that however, the case was tried along with other accused persons who were major and they have also been convicted. He submits that so far as convicted major accused persons are concerned, their conviction has 3 W.P.(Cr.) No. 89 of 2015 already been set aside in the appeal. He submits that counter blast case being Sessions Case No.172/1989 and 172(A) of 1989 identical situation was there and that is why the coordinate Bench of this Court referred the matter to the Division Bench and on reference the Division Bench has set aside the said judgment. He submits that the said writ petition was allowed and the orders passed were quashed. 4. The learned counsel for the respondent State submits that in view of the Division Bench judgment of this Court the case of the petitioners is fully covered. The Division Bench of this Court, after considering the entire facts came to the conclusion at paragraph nos.5 and 6 and has held as under: “(V) It has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Babban Rai & Anr. v. State of Bihar reported in 2008 Cri. L. J 1038 in paragraph 5 as under: “5. So far as the convictions of these two appellants, as confirmed by the High Court, on behalf of the appellants is not in a position to point out any error in the order of the High Court whereby convictions of the appellants have been confirmed. Having gone through the impugned judgement and the records, we also do not find any ground to hold that the High Court was not justified in upholding the convictions of the appellants. This being the position, we are of the view that the High Court has not committed any error in upholding convictions of the appellants. Now, the question arises in relation to sentences. In view of our aforesaid finding that these two appellants were juvenile on the date of alleged occurrence and they have now attained majority. It would be just and expedient to set aside their sentences and pass an order of releasing them as they cannot be sent to remand home.” (Emphasis supplied) In the aforesaid decision, Hon’ble Supreme Court upheld the conviction and quashed and set aside the quantum of punishment mainly for the reason that no meaningful purpose will be achieved by punishing the then juveniles for maximum period of three years, who have attained the age of approximately 35 years by the time Hon’ble Supreme Court decided the matter. In the present case also the offence is of 23rd May, 1988 and as per report given by the Juvenile court-cum-Addl.Chief Judicial Magistrate, Latehar dated 31st January, 2005. These petitioners were of less than 16 years of age on the date of commission of the offence and therefore, they 4 W.P.(Cr.) No. 89 of 2015
Decision
were juveniles as per section 2(h) of the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 and they must have attained more than 35 years of age by now. Therefore also, we are not inclined to relegate this petition to the Juvenile Justice Board for any punishment even if the conviction is upheld by this Court. 5. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid facts, reasons and judicial pronouncements, we, hereby, quash and set aside the following: (I) Judgment dated 17/22thJune, 2005 (Annexure 1 to the memo of the writ petition) delivered by Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Latehar in Sessions Case No. 172 of 1989 and 172-A of 1989 to the extent it is concerned with these writ petitioners, (II) Judgment dated 12th July, 2005 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Latehar in S.T. Case No.172 of 1989/Juvenile tr. No. 97 of 2005 and (III) Memo No. 264 dated 7th February, 2006 issued under the seal and signature of the Under Secretary to the Govt. of Jharkhand, Department of Home. 6. This writ petition is accordingly allowed and disposed of.” 5. In view of the Division Bench judgment passed in W.P.(Cr.) No.268 of 2005, the case of the petitioners is fully covered and, accordingly, the same order is being passed in the present case. 6. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid facts, reasons and judicial pronouncements, I, hereby, quash and set aside the following: (I) Judgment dated 17 June, 2005 (Annexure 1 to the memo of the writ petition) delivered by Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Latehar in Sessions Case No.171 of 1989 and 171-A of 1989 to the extent it is concerned with these writ petitioners, (II) Judgment dated 12th July, 2005 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Latehar in S.T. Case No.171 of 1989/Juvenile tr. No. 96 of 2005, and (III) Memo No. 264 dated 7th February, 2006 issued under the seal and signature of the Under Secretary to the Govt. of Jharkhand, Department of Home. 7. This writ petition is accordingly allowed and disposed of. ( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) SI/,