Partly allowed

Pradeep v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC26 May 2023CRLA/4792/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal appeal, the High Court considered whether the appellant, found to be around 14 years old at the time of the offence, should be treated as a minor. The court upheld the conviction but set aside the sentence, releasing the appellant immediately as the mandatory punishment for a juvenile is three years and he had already served that duration. The court also ruled that no disqualifica

What did the court decide?

The conviction is upheld; the sentence is set aside; the appellant is released forthwith if not detained under any other order; he is not disqualified due to the conviction.

Pradeep Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:118724-DB

¶2

Court No. - 48

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 4792 of 2018

¶4

Appellant :- Pradeep Respondent :- State of U.P. Counsel for Appellant :- Shiv Nath Singh,Akhilesh Chandra Dwivedi,Sachchida Nand Tiwari,Surya Bhan Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Hari Nath Chaubey

¶5

Hon'ble Siddhartha Varma,J. Hon'ble Manish Kumar Nigam,J.

¶6

Criminal Misc. Application No.5 of 2021 :

¶7

When on 15.12.1991, the incident had occurred and the First Information Report was lodged, a Case Crime Number being 39 of 1991 was registered. Upon investigation, the police submitted its report and Sessions Trial No.58 of 1992 commenced. Thereafter the appellant Pradeep in the instant appeal along with Govind Tiwari, the appellant in Criminal Appeal No.5147 of 2018 were found guilty of offences under section 302 of Indian Penal Code. The appellant-Pradeep filed an application on 19.2.2021 for declaring him a juvenile on the date of incident i.e. on 15.12.1991. On this application, this Court on 8.9.2022 directed the Juvenile Justice Board, Ramabai Nagar (Kanpur Dehat) to determine the age of the accused-appellant Pradeep on the date of occurrence of the incident. In pursuance thereof, we find, the Juvenile Justice Board on 17.12.2022 has sent a report that the appellant-Pradeep on 15.12.1991 was aged about 14 years 8 months and 14 days and had determined the date of birth as 1.4.1977. This was done on the basis of the school leaving certificate filed before the Board. When the school leaving certificate was being considered, it was found to be correct on the basis of the statement made by the Principal of

¶8

the institution from where the appellant had studied.

¶9

When the report was submitted, we had asked the learned AGA and the learned counsel appearing for the first informant Sri Hari Nath Chaubey to enquire if any appeal etc. had been filed against the order dated 17.12.2022. This order of ours was passed on 16.5.2023.

¶10

Today, Sri S.N. Mishra, learned AGA, after looking into the record/communications, as have been received, has stated that no appeal has been filed against the order dated 17.12.2022 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Ramabai Nagar (Kanpur Dehat). The communication, which has been received from the Juvenile Justice Board, Ramabai Nagar along with the record be kept on record.

¶11

From the report of the Juvenile Justice Board as also from the record which has been handed over to us, we find that notices were issued to the first informant. The first informant was, however, not served as he was reported to be dead on the date when the notices were to be served and, therefore, there was no opposition.

¶12

Learned counsel for the appellant has not argued on the merits of the appeal. He has stated that the maximum punishment which could be awarded was three years under the provisions of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Child) Act, 2015 and the appellant has already remained in jail for more than 3 years. Learned counsel for the appellant has, therefore, prayed that the appellantPradeep be released, even if the conviction is made to stand.

¶13

Under such circumstances, We, therefore, affirm the judgment of the Sessions Court dated 4.8.2018 so far as conviction is concerned. We, however, set aside the sentence awarded to the

¶14

appellant as he has already undergone a sentence of 3 years.

¶15

Therefore, we allow the application and direct that applicant/appellant - Pradeep, convicted and sentenced in Sessions Trial No.58 of 1992 decided by the VIth Additional District & Sessions Judge, Court No.2, Kanpur Dehat, shall be forthwith set at liberty provided he is not required to be detained under any other order of any Competent Court.

¶16

In view of sub-Section (1) of Section 24 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act of 2015, the applicant/appellant -Pradeep shall not incur any disqualification because of his conviction and period of sentence undergone by him. The miscellaneous application is allowed in above terms.

¶17

Order on Appeal :

¶18

The appeal is partly allowed. The conviction, as has not been challenged by the appellant, is upheld, The appellant, however, stands released.

¶19

Order Date :- 26.5.2023 GS

¶20

(Manish Kumar Nigam, J.) (Siddhartha Varma, J.)

¶21

Digitally signed by :- GAUTAM SONI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Pradeep v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pradeep v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Baijnath Yadav and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Radhey Shyam Singh and Others Vs State of U.P.

Surat Singh Vs State of U.P.

Rajnish Mishra Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Shabi Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Mohd. Saif Vs State of U.P. and Another