Allowed

Hajrat v. the State of Madhya Pradesh

Madhya Pradesh HC25 Nov 2022CRA/863/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appellant challenged conviction alleging juvenility. Court accepted age determination report establishing appellant was a minor. Relying on precedents, court held trial court lacked jurisdiction and set aside impugned judgment, remitting records to Juvenile Justice Board.

What did the court decide?

Impugned judgment in Sessions Case No. 454/2006 set aside. Record remitted to Juvenile Justice Board for sentencing.

Hajrat Vs the State of Madhya Pradesh — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Madhya Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL

¶5

¶6

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR PALIWAL ON THE 25^th OF NOVEMBER, 2022

¶7

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 863 of 2011

¶8

BETWEEN:-

¶9

HAJRAT S/O IDDU MUSALMAN, AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS, R/O VILL. SURKHI, DISTT. SAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)

¶10

.....APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SHRI RAJMANI SINGROUL, ADVOCATE )

¶12

AND

¶13

THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH POLICE STATION - SURKHI, DISTT. SAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)

¶14

.....RESPONDENT

¶15

(BY SHRI ARVIND SINGH, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE )

¶16

This appeal coming on for orders this day, JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL

¶17

passed the following:

¶18

ORDER

¶19

With the consent finally heard.

¶20

A question cropped up before this Court whether the appellant was a juvenile at the time of commission of crime. The appellant filed I.A. No. 11407/2021 for deciding the issue of juevenility of the appellant.

¶21

This court directed the respondent to file response and in turn, response dated 27^th August, 2021 was filed by the State not disputing the documents filed by the appellant.

¶22

In turn, this court by a detailed order dated 06.05.2022 directed the trial

¶23

Signature Not Verified Signed by: AKANKSHA MAURYA Signing time: 11 /26/2022 12:10:46 PM

¶24

¶25

court to conduct age determination enquiry as contemplated under Section 7 (A) of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children )Act, 2015 and submits its finding. The court below in its report submitted to this court that on the date of incident i.e. 16.06.2005 appellant was 17 years 8 months and 1 day old. His date of birth was determined as 15.10.1987.

¶26

Copy of this report was provided to Shri Arvind Singh, G.A. on the last date of hearing. He did not dispute the finding given by the court below. Thus, there is no scintilla of doubt that appellant could prove his juvenility and he was a juvenile at the time of commission of crime.

¶27

Shri Singroul placed reliance on ILR (2014) M.P. 1463 ( Kamlendra Singh @ Pappu Singh Vs. State of M.P.) which is based on the judgment of Supreme Court reported in 2013 (1) MPHT 109 (SC) (Ashwani Kumar Saxena Vs. State of M.P.). Para 7 of the judgment Kamlendra Singh (Supra) reads as under:-

¶28

7. Going by those documents, evidently, the date of birth of the appellant is 25.2.1977. If that be so, the appellant was a juvenile on the date of the incident. We have extensively examined the provisions of the Juvenile of Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 in Ashwani Kumar Saxena v. State of M.P. (2012) 9 SCC 750 and we are of the view that the principle laid down in the above judgment squarely applies to the facts of the present case. Under such circumstances, we are inclined to set aside the sentence awarded by the trial Court, confirmed by the High Court and the case records are directed to be placed before the concerned Juvenile Justice Board for awarding the appropriate sentence. Ordered accordingly.

¶29

In view of the principles laid in these judgments, it can be safely held that

¶30

Signature Not Verified Signed by: AKANKSHA MAURYA Signing time: 11 /26/2022 12:10:46 PM

¶31

¶32

the impugned judgment cannot be permitted to stand because appellant was admitted not tried by appropriate forum constituted under the JJ Act. Resultantly, impugned judgment dated 27.10.2010 passed in Sessions Case No. 454/2006 is set aside.

¶33

As held in Kamlendra Singh (Supra), Registry of this court shall send the record before the concerned Juvenile Justice Board for awarding appropriate sentence.

¶34

It is ordered accordingly,

¶35

Cr.A. is disposed off. C.C. as per rules.

¶36

(SUJOY PAUL) (DINESH KUMAR PALIWAL)
JUDGE JUDGE
Akm

¶37

Signature Not Verified Signed by: AKANKSHA MAURYA Signing time: 11 /26/2022 12:10:46 PM

Hajrat v. the State of Madhya Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hajrat v. the State of Madhya Pradesh

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