State v. Sahju
Case brief
What is this about?
In this criminal appeal, the High Court dismissed the State's appeal against the acquittal of the accused, a juvenile. The Court held that the trial judge's finding was neither perfunctory nor perverse and that no interference was warranted as the matter was devoid of merit.
What did the court decide?
The appeal is dismissed; the accused-respondent in judicial custody is to be set free.
What the court decided
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 75 / 2014
State
----Appellant
Versus
Sahju
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Prakash Thakuriya, PP For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jiya-ur-Rehman
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Order
19/02/2018
Accused-respondent has been produced in this court. No application for withdrawl of non-bailable warrants or releasing the accused-respondent on bail has been filed. Hence, on the joint prayer made by counsel for the parties, appeal itself is taken on board for final hearing and decision.
Trial Judge has given a categoric finding that on the date of occurrence accused-respondent was aged fifteen and half years, thus, counsel for the accused-respondent has contended that in view of the judgment rendered by Supreme Court in Abdul Razzaq vs. State of U.P., reported as AIR 2015 Supreme Court 1770, accused-respondent is to be treated as delinquent juvenile in conflict with law because of retrospective operation of Sections 7-A and 20 of the Juvenile Justice(Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000.
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the acquittal of a minor accused who appeared to be under 18 years of age.
Whether the Trial Judge's finding that the prosecution failed to prove conscious possession for criminal mischief is perverse.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
State
- respondent
Sahju
Coram
Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- Rajasthan HC
- Decided on
- · February
- Registered
- Case no.
- CRLA/75/2014
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court