Full Judgment Text
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2023 OF 2012
(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.)NO.7695 OF 2010)
TOK TADE APPELLANT
VERSUS
NABAM AMAS & ANR. RESPONDENTS
O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment
and order passed by the High Court of Gauhati in
Criminal Appeal No.3 (AP) of 2009, dated 03.05.2010.
By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court has
affirmed the judgment and order passed by the Trial
JUDGMENT
Court, in Sessions Case No. 490 of 2006, by convicting
the first respondent-herein (R-1) under Sections 302,
376 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (the “IPC”
for short). However, taking into consideration the
plea of the learned Counsel for the R-1, as to the
juvenility of R-1 on the date of the commission of the
offence, i.e., 06.09.2005, the High Court, while
sustaining the conviction passed by the Trial Court,
Page 1
2
has granted R-1 the benefits under the provisions of
the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children)
Act, 2000 (the “Act” for short). The High Court vide
the impugned judgment and order has restricted the
sentence awarded by the Court below to the period of
imprisonment already undergone by R-1.
3. Aggrieved by the latter part of the judgment
with respect to the benefits conferred upon R-1 under
the Act, the Complainant-herein, who was not a party
before the High Court, is before us with permission to
file the Special Leave Petition. This Court, while
issuing notice on 10.09.2010, had granted permission
to the Complainant to file the Special Leave Petition
against the judgment and order passed by the High
JUDGMENT
Court, insofar as the latter portion of the judgment
and order passed by the High Court is concerned.
4. The learned Counsel appearing for the
appellant brings to our notice that he had approached
the competent authority, i.e., the Public Information
Officer, O/o. Deputy Commissioner, Papum Pare
District, Yupia, Arunachal Pradesh. The concerned
Page 2
3
authority has furnished the required information. The
learned Counsel for the Appellant has placed reliance
on the information so obtained under the Right to
Information Act, 2005 and submits that the date of
birth of R-1 is infact 05.02.1988 and not 05.04.1991,
as claimed by R-1 before the High Court. The alleged
claims by R-1 were based on the date of birth
mentioned in the School Transfer Certificate, the date
of birth as on the admission register and the medical
report furnished vide their letter dated 28.03.2010.
5. In our opinion, this aspect of the matter
requires to be re-looked into by the High Court, for
the simple reason that the Complainant was not a party
before the High Court and the above-stated fact was
JUDGMENT
not brought to the notice of the High Court at the
time of the decision.
6. In view of the above, we partly allow this
appeal and set aside only that portion of the order of
the High Court, where the High Court has come to the
conclusion that R-1 is a juvenile under the provisions
of the Act. The High Court will now consider this
Page 3
4
particular aspect of the matter afresh itself or
assign the same to any competent authority. We
request the High Court to decide and complete this
exercise as expeditiously as possible, at any rate,
within six months from the date of receipt of a copy
of this order.
Appeal is disposed of accordingly.
.......................J.
(H.L. DATTU)
.......................J.
(CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD)
NEW DELHI;
DECEMBER 10, 2012.
JUDGMENT
Page 4