Allowed

Ramankumar Gandhi Mishra v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC11 Jul 2018APPA/393/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court, while hearing a criminal appeal and a concurrent bail application, accepted the report confirming the appellant was a juvenile during the 2013 offence. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, acquitted the appellant, and remanded the matter to the Juvenile Justice Board.

What did the court decide?

Accused acquitted, conviction and sentence set aside, matter remanded to Juvenile Justice Board, and accused set at liberty.

Ramankumar Gandhi Mishra Vs the State of… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

1 APEAL 1022-17 @ APPA 393-18.doc-901

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1022 OF 2017

¶4

ALONG WITH

¶5

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.393 OF 2018

¶6

Ramankumar Gandhi Mishra. ] … Appellant / Applicant Versus State of Maharashtra. ] … Respondent

¶7

Mr. Subhash Jha a/w Mr. Harikrishna Mishra & Mr. Siddharth Jha i/b Law Global Associates for Appellant / Applicant. Mr. J. P. Yagnik, APP for State.

¶8

CORAM :- B. R. GAVAI & SARANG V. KOTWAL, JJ. DATE :- 11 JULY, 2018

¶9

P. C. :-

¶10

By this Appeal, the Appellant has challenged the Judgment

¶11

and Order dated 24/08/2017 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No.55 of 2014 whereby he was convicted for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 read with 34 of the IPC and was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for

¶12

1 of 4

¶13

URS

¶14

2 APEAL 1022-17 @ APPA 393-18.doc-901

¶15

life and to pay fine of Rs.3,000/- and in default of payment fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for three months. The Appellant was convicted for committing murder of one Harinath Yadav on 28/05/2013 at about 9.45 p.m. at Marol-Maroshi Industrial Estate, Andheri, Mumbai.

¶16

It is not necessary to discuss the evidence and the Judgment in detail. Suffice it to say that the Appeal was admitted on 15/02/2018. The Appellant preferred Criminal Bail Application No.393 of 2018 in Criminal Appeal No.1022 of 2017 raising the ground that he was born on 15/02/1997 and hence, was a juvenile on the date of the incident i.e. 28/05/2013, within the meaning of the word 'juvenile' under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (for short, 'the said Act'). The Appellant had prayed in the said Application that he should be released on bail during pendency of the Appeal or in the alternative, his sentence should be suspended. This Court (Coram : S. C. Dharmadharkari & Prakash D. Naik, JJ.), vide Order dated 27/03/2018, ordered inquiry in respect of plea of juvenility raised by the Appellant before this Court. Pursuant to the said Order, an inquiry was conducted by the

¶17

URS 2 of 4

¶18

3 APEAL 1022-17 @ APPA 393-18.doc-901

¶19

Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Mumbai, and vide his report dated 21/06/2018, pased the following Order :

¶20

“ On the date of crime/incident dated 28.05.2013 applicant Ramankumar Gandhi Mishra was “juvenile” as defined in Section 2(35) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. ”

¶21

It is a settled position in law that the plea of juvenility can be raised even at the stage of appeal. In this connection, reference can be made to the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohd. Feroz Khan alias Feroz Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh¹ .

¶22

In this view of the matter, pursuant to the Order passed by this Court, the report of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Mumbai, is received mentioning therein that the Appellant was a juvenile on the date of commission of offence. He is entitled to avail of the benefits of the provisions of the said Act. The trial before the Sessions Court, therefore, stands vitiated. Hence, the order :

¶23

ORDER

¶24

(i) Appeal is allowed.

¶25

1 (2015) 16 Supreme Court Cases 186

¶26

URS 3 of 4

¶27

4 APEAL 1022-17 @ APPA 393-18.doc-901

¶28

(ii) The Judgment and Order of sentence and conviction dated 24/08/2017 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Mumbai, in Sessions Case No.55 of 2014, is set aside. The Appellant / accused is acquitted of the charges charged with.

¶29

(iii) The matter is remanded back to the Juvenile Justice Board for deciding afresh in accordance with the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.

¶30

(iv) Since the Appellant is acquitted, he be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case.

¶31

(v) In view of disposal of the Appeal, Criminal Application stands disposed of.

¶32

(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.) (B. R. GAVAI, J.)

¶33

4 of 4

¶34

URS

Ramankumar Gandhi Mishra v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramankumar Gandhi Mishra v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The State of Maharashtra Vs Jaydev Rama Gondhali and Ors.

Ravindra H. Pawshe Vs the State of Maharashtra

Nijamuddin Kazim Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ananda Manku Patil and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sarjya @ Sarjerao Dasharath Dhage Vs the State of Maharashtra

Appasaheb Suresh Dhumal Vs the State of Maharashtra