LexGAURAV KUMAR @ MONU versus THE STATE OF HARYANA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B C D E F G H 372 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 3 S.C.R. GAURAV KUMAR @ MONU v. THE STATE OF HARYANA (Criminal Appeal Nos. 283-285 of 2019) FEBRUARY 15, 2019 [ASHOK BHUSHAN AND K. M. JOSEPH, JJ.] Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 – r.12 – Juvenile, on the date of occurrence – Determination of – Applicability of r. 12 of the 2007 Rules – Held: Date of occurrence of the incident was 23/24.05.2000 on which date Rules 2007 were not enforced – Even on the date when the Sessions Judge submitted his report dated 08.05.2003 after holding inquiry, Rule 2007 was not in force – Rule 100 of 2007 Rules repealed the earlier Rule-2001 Rules – Thus, the relevant Rule occupying the field in the instant case were 2001 Rules – Rule 12 of 2007 Rules is not applicable – High Court had no occasion to consider the issue since it was not pressed by the appellant – In the interest of justice, the High Court to consider the question of juvenility of the appellant – Thus, the matter remitted back for consideration – Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2001 – r. 22. Disposing of the appeals, the Court HELD: 1.1 The submission of the appellant was that school certificate filed by him with date of birth 17.08.1982 was not even challenged, hence, on the strength of Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 the said certificate ought to have been accepted by the Sessions Judge. The submissions raised by the appellant based on Rule 12(3) of 2007 Rules could have been considered in detail but in the instant case, there is no applicability of Rule 12 of 2007 Rules. The date of occurrence in the instant case is 23/24.05.2000 on which date Rule 2007 were not enforced. Even on the date when District and Sessions Judge submitted his report 08.05.2003 after holding inquiry, Rule 2007 was not in force. Rule 100 of [2019] 3 S.C.R. 372 372 A B C D E F G H 373 2007 Rules repealed the earlier Rule of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2001. Thus, the relevant Rule occupying the field and required to be looked into are 2001 Rules. [Paras 14-17] [379-G, H; 380-A] 1.2 The High Court had no occasion to consider the issue since the appellant has not pressed the issue before the High Court, thus, it would be appropriate that the High Court be requested to consider the question of juvenility of the appellant afresh before proceeding to decide the appeal. The interest of justice is served by setting aside the order passed by the High Court and remit the question of juvenility to the High Court for consideration. The High Court before deciding the appeal on merit may consider the question of juvenility on the basis of the relevant materials on record. The order passed by the High Court is set aside. [Para 18-19] [380-G, H; 381-A-C] Shah Nawaz v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another (2011) 13 SCC 751 : [2011] 9 SCR 859 ; Abuzar Hossain alias Gulam Hossain v. State of West Bengal (2012) 10 SCC 489 : [2012] 9 SCR 244 – referred to. Case Law Reference [2011] 9 SCR 859 referred to Para 7 [2012] 9 SCR 244 referred to Para 7 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal Nos. 283-285 of 2019. From the Judgment and Order dated 30.01.2015 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in CRM Nos.20593 of 2014, 26949 of 2014 and 3118 of 2015 in Crl. Appeal No. D-937-DB/2002. Neeraj Jain, Sr. Adv., Prem Malhotra, Adv. for the Appellant. Sanjay Kumar Tyagi, AAG, Vishwa Pal Singh, Ajay Pal Singh, Sandeep Singh, Vishal Chauhan, Dr. Amardeep Gaur, Advs. for the Respondent. GAURAV KUMAR @ MONU v. STATE OF HARYANA A B C D E F G H 374 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 3 S.C.R. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by ASHOK BHUSHAN, J. Leave Granted. 2. These appeals have been filed by the appellant challenging the Order dated 30.01.2015 passed by the Punjab & Haryana High Court dismissing three applications as withdrawn filed in Criminal Appeal No. 937 of 2002. Brief facts necessary to be noticed for deciding these appeals are:- 3. The F.I.R. dated 24.05.2000 was registered under Section 323, 506, 148, 149, 170, 171 & 302 IPC against the appellant and other accused. The accused including the appellant were tried by Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar in Criminal Case No. 127 S.C. of 2005. The date of incident is intervening night of 23rd/24th May, 2000, in which incident one Sher Singh was beaten, who was taken to the hospital and after recording of his statement he
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.