LexSUBODH NATH AND ANR. versus STATE OF TRIPURA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2013] 4 S.C.R. 581 SUBODH NATH AND ANR. v. STATE OF TRIPURA (Criminal Appeal No. 1551 of 2007) MARCH 19, 2013 [A.K. PATNAIK AND H. L. GOKHALE, JJ.] A B Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 [as amended by Amendment Act of 2006] - s. 7 A; and proviso & Explanation to s.20 - Applicability of the Act - To c offence committed prior to commencement of the Act - Held: In view of the provisions in ss. 7 A and 20, the Act would be applicable - In the instant case, the accused was below 18 years on the date of commission of the offence, and hence would be treated as juvenile under the provisions of the Act o - Therefore, case qua the juvenile accused remitted to concerned Juvenile Justice Board - Penal Code, 1860 - s.302134. Penal Code, 1860 - s.302/s.34 - Prosecution under - Conviction by courts below - Held: Appellant No. 1-accused E is guilty of offence uls.302 - Prosecution case is supported by eye-witness account corroborated by reliable evidence direct as well as circumstantial - Therefore, his conviction upheld. Criminal Trial - Discrepancy in the version of witness - Effect of - Court not to discard the evidence on the ground of discrepancies, unless they are 'material discrepancies', so as to create reasonable doubt about the credibility of witnesses. F Motive - Relevance of- Held: Motive is relevant in case G where prosecution seeks to prove guilt by circumstantial evidence - It becomes irrelevant if offence is proved by direct evidence. 581 H 582 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2013] 4 S.C.R. A Appellants-accused were prosecuted for having B killed one person. Prosecution case was supported by evidence of one eye-witness. Trial court convicted both the accused u/s. 302/34 IPC. High Court confirmed their conviction. In the instant appeal, it was contended that appellant No.2 was less than 18 years of age on the date of occurrence and hence should have been treated as a juvenile within the meaning of s.2(k) of the Juvenile C Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 and that the provisions of Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 were not applicable. As regards appellant No.1, it was contended that conviction on the testimony of sole eye-witness (PW- 13) was not correct because he was not reliable as he ran 0 away from the place of occurrence and because his evidence was without any corroboration; that there was discrepancy in the evidence of PW-2 and PW-13; that there was no recovery of the weapon of offence and further that the motive to kill the deceased was also not E proved. Allowing the appeal of appellant No.2 and dismissing that of appellant No.1, the Court HELD: 1. The accused is entitled to the benefit of the F 2000 Act, as if the provisions of Section 2(k) thereof had always been in existence even during the operation of the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 by virtue of Section 20 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, as amended by the Amendment Act of 2006. G Considering the provisions of Section 7A and 20 of the 2000 Act and considering that the appellant No.2 was below 18 years of age as per his birth certificate, the impugned judgment of the High Court qua the appellant No.2 is liable to be set aside and the case would be H SUBODH NATH AND ANR. v. STATE OF TRIPURA 583 remitted to the concerned Juvenile Justice Board for A disposal of his case in accordance with the provisions of the 2000 Act. [Para 1 O] [592-A-D] Hari Ram v. State of Rajasthan and Anr. (2009) 13 SCC 211 : 2009 (7) SCR 623 - relied on. B Pratap Singh v. State of Jharkhand and Anr. (2005) 3 SCC 551: 2005(1) SCR 1019 - held inapplicable. 2.1. Appellant No.1 was guilty of the offence u/s. 302 IPC. It is not correct to say that the evidence of PW-13 C was not reliable as he was a suspect and had ran away from the place of occurrence. As explained by PW-13 he left the place of occurrence because of his fear of the appellants who had threatened him with dire consequences if he disclosed the incident to anyone. D The evidence of PW-13 is also supported by the evidence of PW-6. Moreover, the evidence of the Investigating Officer (PW-19) read with Inquest Report (Ext. P-2) prepared by him shows that there were injuries on the dead body of deceased caused by an axe and a gun. PW- E 19 has also stated that he recovered handle of the axe near the dead body of the deceased and he seized the handle of the axe aft
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.