LexUPENDRA PRADHAN versus STATE OF ORISSA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c [2015] 5 S.C.R. 214 UPENDRA PRADHAN v. STATE OF ORISSA (Criminal Appeal No. 2174 of 2009) APRIL 28, 2015. [PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE AND R.K. AGRAWAL, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860: s. 302134 - Murder - Three persons convicted by trial court while accused-appellant given benefit of doubt - High Court held that accusation against appellant was proved beyond reasonable doubt - o Appeal against conviction -Appellant took plea of juvenility and presence of view favouring him - Held: The judgment passed by trial court was not manifestly illegal, perverse and did not cause miscarriage of justice- Trial court was rightly in giving him benefit of doubt- Further, as per school records, E t/10 appellant was less than 18 years at the time of incident- Plea of juvenility can be raised at any time and before any court as per mandate of s. 7(a) and appellant has rightly done so - Even otherwise, he has undergone 8 years in jail which is more than maximum period of 3 years prescribed uls. 15 F of Juvenile Justice Act - High Court's order is set aside - Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 - SS. 7(a), 15. G H Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. In case there are two views which can be culled out from the perusal of evidence and application of law, the view which favours the accused should be taken. The view which favours the accused/ 214 UPENDRA PRADHAN v. STATE OF ORISSA 215 appellant has to be considered and the opposite view A which indicates his guilt is discarded. The High Court should not have interfered with the decision taken by the Additional Session Judge, as the judgment passed was not manifestly illegal, perverse, and did not cause miscarriage of justice. [Paras 10 and 11) [222-H; 224-G- B H; 225-A) Narendra Singh and Anr. v. State of M.P (2004) 10 SCC 699: 2004 (3) SCR 1148; State of Rajasthan v. Raja Ram (2003) 8 SCC 180: 2003 (2) Suppl. SCR 445; C Bindesl'lwari Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar (2002) 6 SCC 650: 2002 (~)Suppl. SCR 495- relied on. 2. The testimonies of interested witnesses are of great importance and weightage. Thus, the plea that D testimonies of PW1 and PW7 should not have been considered as they were interested witnesses is not tenable. [Para 12) [225-E] Mohd. lshaque v. State of West Bengal (2013) 14 SCC E 581 :2013 (5) SCR 518 - relied on. 3. The appellant raised the plea of juvenility under Section 7(A) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2000. As per the School Certificate, the date of birth F of the appellant was 08.07.1976. Therefore, the plea of juvenility can be accepted. The appellant falls within the definition of "juvenile" under Section 2(k) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of children) Act, 2000. He can raise the plea of juvenility at any time and before G any court as per the mandate of Section 7(a) and has rightly done so. On the question of sentencing, the accused appellant is to be released. In the present matter, in addition to the fact that he was a juvenile at the time of H 216 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 5 S.C.R. A commission of offence, the accused appellant is entitled to benefit of doubt. Therefore, the conviction order passed by the High Court is not sustainable in law. Assuming without conceding, that even if the conviction is upheld, appellant has undergone almost 8 years of B sentence, which is more than the maximum period of three years prescribed under Section 15 of the Juvenile Justice Act of 2000. Thus, giving him the benefit under the Act, the decision of the High Court is struck down. C [Paras 13 and 14] [226-A-D; E-F] D E F Ajay Kumar v State of M.P. (2010) 15 SCC 83; Hakim v. State (2014) 13 SCC 427: Lakhan Lal v. State of Bihar (2011) 2 sec 251: 2011 (1) SCR 770 - relied on. Case Law Reference 2004 (3) SCR 1148 relied on. Para 10 2003 (2) Suppl. SCR 445 relied on. Para 11 2002 (1) Suppl. SCR 495 relied on. Para 11 2013 (5) SCR 518 relied on. Para 12 (2010) 15 sec 83 relied on. Para 15 (2014) 13 sec 427 relied on. Para 15 2011 (1) SCR 770 relied on. Para 15 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal G Appeal No. 217 4 of 2009 H From the Judgment and Order dated 17. 09.2008 of the High Court of Orissa, at Cuttack in Government Appeal No. 18of1995 UPENDRA PRADHAN v. STATE OF ORISSA 217 Rutwik Panda,Anshu Malik for the Appellant. A Sibo Sankar Mishra for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was deliv
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.