LexJAMEEL versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c JAMEEL v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA JANUARY 16,2007 [S.B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KA TJU, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860; ss. 363, 377 and 511: Rape of a minor girl-Accused allegedly enticed a minor girl, later raped her-Trial Court found him guilty of offences under ss. 363, 376 rlw ss. 511 and 377 !PC and sentenced him accordingly-Appeal dismissed by High Court-On appeal, Held: Prosecutrix was absolutely a minor innocent girl-She having identified the accused, it would be futile to hold a test identification parade-On the basis of deposition of prosecutrix and her parents, Trial Court as also High Court rightly convicted the accused D persons. E Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000- Applicability of-Held: Not applicable since accused having attained eighteen years of age on 1.4.2001, the date on which 2000 Act came into force. Accused-appellant allegedly enticed the prosecutrix, a 5 years old girl, and taken her away and raped her. She returned and narrated the incident to her parents. On the next day the girl was taken to the garag~ where accused was working as mechanic, where she identified the accused. F An FIR was lodged and the prosecutrix was examined medically. Trial Court found the accused guilty of committing the offences u/ss. 363, 376 r/w Section 511 and Section 377 IPC and sentenced him accordingly and also imposed fine. Accused preferred an appeal, which was dismissed by the High Court. Hence the present appeal. G Appellant contended that he having not been put to test identification parade, which was imperative having regard to the fact that the prosecutrix did not know him, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained; that although his age on the date of the occurrence was more than sixteen years but below eighteen years, having regard to the provision of the Juvenile H Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, it was imperative on 946 \ JAMEEL v. STATE 947 the part of the court to follow the procedures laid down therein. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. The appellant allured the prosecutrix stating that he would take her on his Luna for a ride. She was tempted to go along with him. The medical report is also not in dispute. The identification of the accused by the prosecutrix on the next day of the incident also stands proved. Having regard to the depositions of the prosecutrix and her parents, the Trial Court as also the High Court cannot be held to have committed any error in arriving at the finding convicting the accused for committing offences u/ss. 363, 376 r/w ss. 377 and 511 IPC. [Paras 10 and 11] [950-C-D] 1.2. The deposition of the prosecutrix clearly shows that she was absolutely an innocent girl. [Para 12] [950-H] A B c 1.3. Having regard to the fact that the appellant was known to the prosecutrix and her family members and she having identified him before D lodging of the F.I.R., it would have been futile to hold a test identification parade. Even otherwise the substantive evidence is the evidence of identification in court. Hence, the prosecution has not proved its case. [Para 12J [951-A-BJ Amitsingh Bhikamsing Thakur v. State of Maharashtra, [2007) l E SCALE 62, relied on. 2.1. Appellant on the date of occurrence had completed sixteen years of age. The offence having been committed on 16.12.1989, the 2000 Act has no application. In terms of the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, 'juvenile' was defined to mean "a boy who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had attained the age of eighteen years". [Para 13) (951-C] Pratap Singh v. State of Jharkhand and Another, (2005] 3 SCC 551, followed. 2.2. Appellant was above eighteen years of age on 01.04.2001. The 2000 Act, therefore, cannot have any application whatsoever in the instant case. [Para 15) [952-E) CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 173 of 2006. F G H \. 948 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007] l S.C.R. ~ A From the Judgment and Final Order dated 27. l.2005 of the High Court '.( of Judicature of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad in Crl. A. No. 23/1991. Sanjeev Kumar Choudhary, Sanjay Visen and P.V. Yogeswaran for the Appellant. B Su.shil Karanjkar, Gautam Godara and Ravindra K. Adsure for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by c S.B. SINHA, J. : This appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated 27.01.2005 passed by a learned Single Judge of the Aurangabad Be
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.