BABLA @ DINESH versus STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

Citation: [2012] 7 S.C.R. 477 · Decided: 04-09-2012 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: H.L. DATTU · Disposal: Case Partly allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

(2012] 7 S.C.R. 477 
BABLA @ DINESH 
v. 
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1349 of 2012) 
SEPTEMBER 04, 2012 
[H.L. DATTU AND CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD, JJ.] 
JUVENILE JUSTICE (CARE AND PROTECTION OF 
CHILDREN) ACT 2000: 
ss. 2(k) and 15 - Plea of juvenility - Held: Can be raised 
even before Supreme Court for the first time - The report of 
Addi. Sessions Judge concluding that the appellant was aged 
about 10-15 years on the date of commission of the offence 
A 
B 
c 
(i.e. 1.12.1991) is accepted -Appellant is, thus, juvenile within 
0 
the expression uls 2(h) of 1986 Act and s. 2(k) of 2000 Act -
Appellant has undergone the actual period of more than 3 
years out of the maximum period prescribed u/s 15 - While 
sustaining the conviction, the sentence awarded to him by 
courts below is set aside - Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 - s.2(h) 
E 
- Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 
2007 - r. 2 - Penal Code, 1860 - s. 3021149. 
The appellant, who was one of the accused before 
the trial court, was convicted and sentenced to 
imprisonment for life u/s 302/149 IPC. The High Court 
F 
confirmed the judgment rejecting the plea of juvenility of 
the appellant on the ground that it was not raised before 
the trial court and no evidence was adduced in defence. 
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court 
G 
HELD: 1.1 The High Court has erred in dismissing the 
appeal on the ground that no evidence was adduced and 
no suggestion was made to the witnesses regarding 
juvenility of the appellant during the trial. The issue of 
477 
H 
478 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2012] 7 S.C.R. 
A raising the plea for determination of juvenility for the first 
time at the appellate stage is no more res integra. This 
Court in Lakhan Lal's* case, taking note of its previous 
decisions on this point has allowed such plea raised 
before this Court for the first time. [para 9) (481-F-G] 
B 
Lakhan Lal v. State of Bihar 2011 (1) SCR 770 = (2011) 
2 SCC 251; Umesh Singh and Anr. v. State of Bihar, (2000) 
6 SCC 89; Bhola Bhagat v. State of Bihar, 1997 (4) Suppl. 
SCR 711 = (1997) 8 SCC 720; Gopinath Ghosh v. State of 
WP. 1984 SCR 803 =1984 Supp SCC 228; and Bhoop Ram 
C v. State of UP. (1989) 3 SCC 1; and Pradeep Kumar v. State 
of UP., 1995 Supp(4) sec 419 - relied on. 
1.2 Pursuant to the directions issued by this Court, 
the Additional Sessions Judge has conducted inquiry by 
0 following the procedure prescribed under the Juvenile 
Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 and 
submitted his report dated 03.12.2011, wherein, it is 
concluded that the appellant was aged about 10-15 years 
on the date of the commission of the offence i.e. 
1.12.1991. The report is accepted. Accordingly, this Court 
E holds that the appellant was juvenile within the meaning 
of the expression uls 2(h) of the Juvenile Justice Act, 
1986 and s. 2(k) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and 
Protection of Children) Act, 2000 and the Rules framed 
thereunder on the date of commission of the offence. The 
F Jail Custody Certificate, produced by the appellant 
suggests that he has undergone the actual period of 
sentence of more than three years out of the maximum 
period prescribed u/s 15 of the Act. In the circumstance, 
while sustaining the conviction of the appellant, the 
G sentence awarded to him by the trial court and confirmed 
by the High Court is set aside. [para7 and 12) [481-C-D; 
483-F-G] 
Case Law Reference: 
H 
2011 (1) SCR 770 
relied on 
para 9 
•· 
BABLA @ DINESH v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND 
479 
2000 (6) sec 89 
relied on 
1997 (4) Suppl. SCR 711 relied on 
1984 SCR 803 
1989 (3) sec 1 
relied on 
relied on 
1995 (4) Suppl. SCC 419 relied on 
para 9 
para 9 
para 9 
para 9 
para 9 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal 
No. 1349 of 2012. 
A 
B 
From the Judgment & Order dated 21.07.2009 of the High 
C 
Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital in Criminal Appeal No. 1481 
of 2001 (Old No. 1852 of 1995). 
T.N. Singh, Vikas K. Singh, H.L. Srivastava for the 
Appellant. 
Mukesh Verma, (For Jatinder Kumar Bhatia) for the 
Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
H.L. DATTU, J. 1. Leave granted. 
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order 
passed by the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital in Criminal 
Appeal No.1481 of 2001 dated 21.07.2009. By the impugned 
judgment, the High Court has confirmed the Order of conviction 
D 
E 
and sentence of the appellant passed by the Trial Court under 
F 
Section 302 re
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.