Dismissed

Sri Udaykiran @ Kiran v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC1 Aug 2022CRL.P/1819/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka dismissed a criminal petition seeking quashing of the Juvenile Justice Board's order transferring the petitioner to be tried as an adult. The Court held that Section 18(3) of the J.J. Act, 2015 mandated adult trial for a 17-year-old accused found capable of understanding consequences during pending proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; order of the Juvenile Justice Board transferring the petitioner to be tried as an adult stands upheld.

Sri Udaykiran @ Kiran Vs State of Karnataka — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

CRL.P No. 1819 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2022

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1819 OF 2022

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI UDAYKIRAN @ KIRAN S/O VENKATESH AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS R/AT H.BYAPANAHALLI VILLAGE MULBAGAL TALUK KOLAR TALUK – 563 131.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. NANJUNDA GOWDA M.R., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY NANGLI POLICE MULBAGAL TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT

¶13

Digitally signed by PADMAVATHI B K Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR BENGALURU PIN – 560 001.

¶15

SRI MANJUNATH S/O LATE MUNISWAMY AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS R/AT H.BYAPANAHALLI VILLAGE MULBAGAL TALUK

¶16

¶17

CRL.P No. 1819 of 2022

¶18

KOLAR TALUK – 563 131.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI.K.S.ABHIJITH., HCGP FOR R1)

¶21

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO A. SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 27.09.2019 (CR.NO.39/2019) PASSED BY THE JUVENILE JUSTICE BOARD K.G.F., AND DIRECT THE JUVELINE JUSTICE BOARD, K.G.F., TO PROCEED WITH THE MATTER AND TO DISPOSE OFF ACCORDING TO LAW. B. SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 12.08.2021 PASSED IN S.C.NO.39/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, KOLAR.

¶22

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

ORDER

¶24

The petitioner is before this Court calling in question order dated 27-09-2019 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, KGF (‘the Board’ for short) and consequently seeks a direction to the Board to proceed and dispose of the matter in accordance with law. A further challenge is also made to order dated 12-08-2021 passed by the learned Sessions Judge in S.C.No.39 of 2020 rejecting the plea of the petitioner that he is to be tried as a juvenile.

¶25

¶26

CRL.P No. 1819 of 2022

¶27

Heard Sri M.R. Najunda Gowda, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri K.S.Abhijith, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the 1^st respondent/ State.

¶28

Brief facts leading to the filing of the present petition, as borne out from the pleadings, are as follows:-

¶29

The petitioner is accused No.1. A complaint comes to be registered by one Manjunath on 25-04-2019 in Crime No.39 of 2019 at Nangli Police Station against the petitioner, Kalyan Kumar and Reddamma for offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 504 r/w Section 34 of the IPC. The allegation in the complaint is that on 25-04-2019 the petitioner and Kalyan Kumar parked their two wheeler on the side of the road near their house and at that point in time, the deceased Govardhan and Master Chandan were playing on the said road. The petitioner and Kalyan Kumar noticed the two wheeler that they had parked was punctured. Thereafter the petitioner assumes that the said puncture was done by Master Chandan and picked up a quarrel with the mother of Chandan and abused her in filthy language. One Manjunath comes to the scene and

¶30

¶31

CRL.P No. 1819 of 2022

¶32

appears to have pacified. On the same day at about 3.00 p.m. the petitioner and other accused armed with deadly weapons stabbed Govardhan on the right eye and accused No.2 assaulted Lakshmidevamma with a club and accused No.3 assaulted Lakshmidevamma with a brick with an intention to kill her. Govardhan was shifted to the hospital where he succumbed to the injuries sustained. It is this incident that triggered registration of crime in Crime No.39 of 2019 for the aforesaid offences.

¶33

In respect of accused Nos. 2 and 3 the matter is pending adjudication in S.C.No.39 of 2020 for it having been committed to the learned Sessions Judge. In respect of the petitioner who at the relevant point in time was a juvenile, the charge sheet was filed before the Board showing the petitioner to be 17 years at the time of occurrence of the incident. The Board passed an order on 09-08-2019 that the offences alleged against the petitioner were the ones punishable under Sections 302 and 307 of the IPC; they are heinous offences. The petitioner was more than 16 years of age at the time of the incident and in terms of Section 14 of the Juvenile Justice (Care

¶34

¶35

CRL.P No. 1819 of 2022

¶36

and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (‘Act’ for short), it was mandatory for the Board to hold a preliminary inquiry. Thereafter a report was sought from the Psychologist or Psycho Social Worker about the capability and understanding of the consequences by the petitioner to commit such offence. In terms of the said order, medical examination of the petitioner takes place and on such examination, the opinion of Psychologist and the psychiatrist who examined the petitioner was that “the child in conflict with law has understanding of social and interpersonal consequences of committing such offences. His knowledge of legal consequences was inadequate”. It also opined that he was aware of the commission of offence would lead to conviction by the police and was not aware of POCSO and other relevant laws.

¶37

Based upon the said assessment report the concerned

¶38

Court on the opinion of psychiatrist transferred the case to the Children’s Court, Kolar to try the petitioner as an adult in terms of Section 18(3) of the Act and the case on being transferred to Children’s Court on 27-09-2019 the learned Sessions Judge clubs the matter along with other co-accused on 01-12-2021

¶39

¶40

CRL.P No. 1819 of 2022

¶41

and adjourns the matter for further proceedings to be conducted on 23.02.2022. Therefore, the petitioner is now an accused in the very crime in S.C.No.39 of 2020 along with other accused. The reason for clubbing the matter is the order of the Board dated 27-09-2019 and, therefore the petitioner calls in question the said order of the Board along with other consequential orders.

¶42

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend with vehemence that the petitioner cannot be tried along with others as he was 17 years 7 months and 6 days old at the time of occurrence of the incident and Section 18(3) of the Act directs that the petitioner should be tried only as a juvenile before the Board and the matter having been clubbed before the learned Sessions Judge pursuant to the order passed by the Children’s Court, it is without authority of law, as the date of occurrence of the incident is what is to be noticed to declare whether the petitioner should be tried along with other co-accused or before the Board. He would seek quashment of the proceedings that transfer the matter to the learned

¶43

¶44

CRL.P No. 1819 of 2022

¶45

Sessions Judge and a consequent direction to try the petitioner

¶46

as a juvenile before the Board.

¶47

On the other hand, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the State would refute the submissions to contend that the petitioner being held to be understanding of social and interpersonal consequences and he being more than 16 years old cannot be tried before the Board, if the offences committed are heinous which is the case on hand, as the offences alleged against the petitioner and others are the ones punishable under Sections 302 and 307 of the IPC. He would support the order passed by the Children’s Court transferring the matter to the learned Sessions Judge and the order of the learned Sessions Judge in clubbing the matter along with other co-accused. He would seek dismissal of the petition.

¶48

I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the material on record.

¶49

The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The bone of contention in the case at hand is the order passed by the

¶50

¶51

CRL.P No. 1819 of 2022

¶52

Board on 27-09-2019. The reason rendered in the order assumes certain significance for consideration of the contention of the petitioner, and therefore, the same is extracted hereunder for the purpose of ready reference:

¶53

“ORDER ON PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 18(3) OF JUVENILE JUSTICE ACT, 2015.

¶54

The CPI of Nangli Police Station, filed a charge sheet against the child in conflict in law (hereinafter called as CCL) for the offences punishable under Section 302, 307, 504 r/w Section 34 of IPC.

¶55

2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that, on 25.04.2019 accused No.2, Pavan Kalyan @ Kalyan Kumar S/o Venkateshappa and CCL Uday Kiran & Kiran Kumar S/o Venkateshappa had parked their two wheeler vehicle on the road besides their house, at that time deceased Govardhan and CW-3 Master Chandan S/o Manjunath were playing on the side road, after some time the wheel of the said two wheeler found punctured, therefore the accused No.2 and the CCL thought that the said Master Chandan has punctured the wheel of the said two wheeler vehicle and the CCL Uday Kiran and accused No.2 and 3 Pavan Kalyan and Smt. Reddamma picked up a quarrel with CW-2 Smt. Lakshmidevi and abused her in filthy language, by that time the husband of CW-2 Sri Manjunath CW-1 came there and pacified the quarrel. Thereafter, on the same day at about 3.00 p.m. the CCL Uday Kiran and accused No.2 and 3 with a common object went to the house of CW-1 with deadly weapons, the CCL Uday Kiran stabbed near the right eye of deceased Govardhan, accused No.2 assaulted CW-2 with a club and accused No.2 assaulted CW-2 with a brick on her head with an intention to kill them, thereafter the injured Govardhan shifted to SNR hospital for necessary treatment, but the doctors of the said hospital declared that the said Govardhan succumbed to the injuries.

¶56

3. Thereafter, on the basis of the complaint lodged by CW-1 on 25-04-2019 Nangli police registered a case against

¶57

¶58

CRL.P No. 1819 of 2022

¶59

the CCL and accused No.3 in Cr.No.39 of 2019, thereafter the CCL was apprehended on 27-04-2019 and produced before the JJB, KGF and he was remanded to observation, thereafter he was enlarged on bail on 29-07-2019 and on 09-08-2019 the Investigation Officer filed the charge sheet against the CCL. Thereafter, the JJB referred the CCL for medical examination from Psychologist or Psycho Social Worker as contemplated under Section 14 of Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 for the purpose of conducting the preliminary enquiry about the capability of CCL to commit such offence. Accordingly, the Investigation Officer got examined the CCL from the District Surgeon, SNR Hospital, Kolar, the clinical Psychologist and the Psychiatrist and the District Surgeon of the SNR District Hospital, Kolar submitted the medical examination report opining as hereunder:

¶60

“ The Child in conflict with Law has understanding of social and interpersonal consequences of committing such offences. His knowledge of legal consequences was inadequate i.e., he was aware that the commission of the offence will lead to conviction by the police and was not aware of pocso act and other relevant laws”.

¶61

The aforesaid opinion given by the Psychologist, the psychiatrist and the District Surgeon of the SNR District Hospital, Kolar makes it emphatically clear that the Child in Conflict with law had the mental and physical capacity to commit such offence and he had the ability to understand the consequences of the offence. According to the SSLC Marks Card of the CCL he was born on 19-09-2001 and the date of incident is 25-04-2019, therefore it is clear that the CCL was more than 16 years old on the date of the said incident.

¶62

4. According to Section 15 of Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 in case of heinous offence alleged to have been committed by a child, who has completed or is above the age of 16 years, the Board shall conduct a preliminary assess with regard to his mental and physical capacity to commit such offence, ability to understand the consequences of the offence and the circumstances in which he allegedly committed the offence, and may pass an order in accordance with the provisions of the sub-section (3) of Section 18,provided that for such an assessment the Board may take the assistance of experienced

¶63

10 -

¶64

CRL.P No. 1819 of 2022

¶65

psychologists or psycho social workers or other experts. Hence, as per the requirement of Section 15(1) of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 this Board obtained the assessment report from the Psychologist, the Psychiatrist and the District Surgeon of the SNR District Hospital, Kolar.

¶66

5. In view of the said assessment made by the Psychologist the Psychiatrist and the District Surgeon of the SNR District Hospital, Kolar this Board is convinced and satisfied that the CCL had mental and physical capacity to commit such offence and he had the ability to understand the consequences of the said offences. Therefore, this Juvenile Justice Board is of the view that this is a fit case to be transferred to the Hon’ble Children’s Court, Kolar to try the CCL as an adult. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following:

¶67

ORDER

¶68

Exercising the power under Section 18(3) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 the present case is transferred to the Hon’ble Children Court, Kolar.”

¶69

The Board analysis entire facts, the position of the child in conflict with law whether has understanding of social and interpersonal consequences, takes note of the documents with regard to the date of birth of the petitioner and holds that the petitioner was more than 16 years of age at the time of incident and in terms of the Act after obtaining an assessment report, transfers the matter to the Children Court at Kolar under Section 18(3) of the Act.

¶70

11 -

¶71

CRL.P No. 1819 of 2022

¶72

The contention that the amendment to the Juvenile

¶73

Justice Act, 2015 came on 07-08-2021 is without any material as the amendment that takes place was in the year 2015, when all the parameters were trying the child in conflict with law before a regular Court. No other amendment is produced by the petitioner to contend that the case of the petitioner would fall within the parameters to be tried by the Board and not by the regular Court. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the contention so advanced by the petitioner in the subject petition. The petitioner has always a remedy available in law to raise this contention at an appropriate stage.

¶74

Criminal petition lacking in merit, stands dismissed.

¶75

Consequently, I.A.No.1 of 2022 stands disposed.

¶76

Sd/JUDGE

¶77

BKP

Sri Udaykiran @ Kiran v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Udaykiran @ Kiran v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ammeraal Beltech (India) Pvt.Ltd Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Roche Arockia Raj M Vs State of Karnataka

Panchaksharaiah Vs Smt. C. M. Yogitha

Naveenkumar S Vs State of Karnataka

Mr M Srinivas Vs State of Karnataka

Ms. Pushpa G N Vs the State of Karnataka