High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRR/3145/2018disposed of

Gurwinder Singh @ Guri v. State Of Punjab

2024-10-017 pages

! "#$ %

& ' " &()

* !

" # $ $

%&'&()

+ "

, - ./

$)$ "#0- ..

- &()

* #

1$ / ) * # 3

.0 " +#- , 0- / !$$- +/0 + , - , 0

$ 5++,6- 22# 2 78 ) # 9

# " 3:- 8& &0 " ,$ - ) *$0

++&(,& $&()&(,& " 3:

8& 82* 2 "*0 ;2 " 8& 82* 2 :

2$ "*0 ;2

1$ * * 00#

- * < ## 00# !$ $ * ** $ *

" $ =!

) $- $ 2 40

;!/ - = !

1$ = * < $ !$0 $ * 0=

1$ * < $ 4 ) $4 #$ $0 $0 *$ ! !00

1$4 2/ 0$ )04- ) *

1$ $ * < / * # 0 2 *

# 00 2 0 /0)0 - / / ++,

.## / 2- * **0 !$$ 2 0! .**00 / 3

> 0 0# 2*# 2 * 4 2 ?2 * - 2( 4 0 4 :

2$ @ 4- !$$ 0 2

Per contra- " 0 ** * 4 ++, !00 ) ** / /0)0 2 ) *$0 0! .**00

. $- 2 4 04

$/ $ 0 * * !$ $ )0

8 **

# 2*0 4 - :

2$ @ 4 4

1$ 0#0 04 2 0 (/0 0? 2 04 2 *0 $2- !$$ /

)$ +/0 +

& $0 .-

$ 5$ . 6 !00 +/0 +

& $0 .-

$ 5$ . 6 * * /

" # . 00!

15 . Order that may be passed regarding juvenile.

(1) Where a Board is satisfied on inquiry that a juvenile has committed an offence, then, not withstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law for the time being in force, the Board may, if t thinks so fit, xxx xxx xxx (g) make an order directing the juvenile to be sent to a special home, (i) in the case of juvenile, over seventeen years but less than eighteen years of age for a period of not less than two years; (ii) in case of any other juvenile for the period until he ceases to be a juvenile:

Provided that the Board may, if it is satisfied that having regard to the nature of the offence and the circumstances of the case it is expedient so to do, for reasons to be recorded, reduce the period of stay to such period as it thinks fit.

A$0 "

# . 00!

18. Orders regarding child found to be in conflict with law.

(1) Where a Board is satisfied on inquiry that a child irrespective of age has committed a petty offence, or a serious offence, or a child below the age of sixteen years has committed a heinous offence, or a child above the age of sixteen years has committed a heinous offence and the Board has, after preliminary assessment under Section 15, disposed of the matter then, notwithstanding anything contrary contained in any other law for the time being in force, and based on the nature of offence, specific need for supervision or intervention, circumstances as brought out in the social investigation report and past conduct of the child, the Board may, if it so thinks fit,- xxx xxx xxx (g) direct the child to be sent to a special home, for such period, not exceeding three years, as it thinks fit, for providing reformative services including education, skill development, counselling, behaviour modification therapy, and psychiatric support during the period of stay in the special home"

. $- 2 0!

2 (/0 - . . - *0 $2 04- )0$2 #0

8 0!

2$ * ) 0!- 2 00! 2*0$ * =- 04 )# $ 2$

0 $ # *0 ;6)0 "* 2 Dharani Sugars and Chemicals Ltd. vs. Union of India and others (2019) 5 SCC 480

1$ - *0 0!

* 0 # 004 * ) (/0 0? 04 *0 $2- 2 4 $ 0 0

;!/ - 2 2 (# * / * 0 $2- * - #004 / (/0- !

2( 4

1$ - # 2* * $2 *0 $2 #0 * 4

. $- $ * ( !00 2 2* * $2

! +# )$ ;6)0 "* 2 Mahesh vs. State of Rajasthan and others 2018(2) R.C.R.(Criminal) 687- 0 !$ 20 2 !$ / (/0 ) $ 2( 4 2 **0

1=# 0< 2 !

20 # 2 !$ 2 $2- 00!# ) / ! 2

"9. The present is a case where the accused appellants though juveniles on the date of commission of the alleged crime are, as on today, middle aged persons. The accused appellant Mahesh in Criminal Appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.2934 of 2015 had undergone the custody for a period of nearly one year whereas the accused appellant Arjun in Criminal Appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.5370

of 2015 had suffered custody for about eight (08) months. The maximum sentence, as already noted, is three years. Having regard to the long efflux of time we are of the view that it will not be necessary, in the facts of the present cases, to cause a remand of the matter to the Juvenile Justice Board for a decision on the quantum of sentence for the reason even if such a remand is made and the Juvenile Justice Board comes to a decision that in addition to the period of custody suffered by the accused appellants they need to suffer a further period of custody, such custody can only be in a remand home or a protection home to which places the accused appellants, because of their age as on today, cannot be sent.

10. On the contrary, having regard to the period of custody suffered; the age of the accused appellants as on date; the efflux of time since the date of occurrence and all other relevant facts and circumstances we are of the view that while maintaining the conviction of the accused appellants the sentence imposed should be modified to one of the period undergone. We order accordingly."

2*$ 0 $ # *0 * (#2 ;6)0 "* 2 Babban Rai and another vs. State of Bihar (2007)13 SCC 88, Pradeep Kumar vs. State of U.P. 1994 AIR SC 104 $ Sanjay alias Kala vs. State of Haryana 2011(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 899, Rajesh Kumar vs. State of Haryana 2011(1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 830 Rohit vs. State of Haryana in CRR562017 decided on 31.10.2017.

8 Deo Narain Mandal vs. State of UP (2004) 7 SCC 2571$ +# ,$ ;B)0 "* 2 * ! # 2 204 20

A$ 222 2<22 2 * ) !$ # - 4 02 /

,=# $ - !$$ 0 0= # /4 - 2 !$$ 22- # - $0 !$0 2# ?2 $

- ) 04 !$2004

. # 00 0/ - * * $0 ! ) # 2 * *0 * * 04 $ </04 $ $ 2 0

7 $ - ! +# ,$ ;B)0 "* 2 Ravada Sasikala vs. State of AP AIR 2017 SC 1166- 2* / 0 * * 2=# 0 2# 04 /2 ) 4 0 #

1$ 0!

$ # !00 0 ** 2 2 # $ < /0# 00 # 2 $ # 2- 2 !$$ 2 22 = )0 )! 4 0!

$ 2

* 0 0 * / 4 # 2 ) ** / /0)0

/ - 0 0 2 - $ - * 4 04 ? ?2

1$ 78 * 0#

) # #4 * 0 2 $ 0

. * 4 - 0 4 - :

2$ @ 4 0 4 -

8 /!

)/- $ * !0 (- ! $2

?04- * / * * 3

. .0 " +#- , 0- 2# *$0- $!/ - ++, 2 < 2* 2 "*0 ;2 ! $2

&# 200 **0 - 4- $00 *

# # A$$ *=#C DC9 A$$ * )0 DC9