LexVIMAL CHADHA versus VIKAS CHOUDHARY AND ANOTHER
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 9 S.C.R. 911 VIMAL CHADHA v VIKAS CHOUDHARY AND ANOTHER (Criminal Appeal No. 966 qf 2008) MAY 27, 2008 [S.S. SINHA AND LOKESHWAR · SINGH PANTA, JJ.) A B Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 - Determination of age of Juvenile in delinquency - For the offence of murder coupled with abduction - Ransom c calls made even after killing of deceased - Held: Such of- fence is a continuous offence - Hence the matter is required to be determined in the light of s. 472 Cr P. C. - Code of Crimi- nal Procedure, 1973 - s. 472. Respondent No. 1-accused was charged for the of- D fence of abduction coupled with murder. Initially he did not claim himself to be a juvenile. After the prosecution adduced its evidence, accused filed an application for transfer of the case to Juvenile Board. In support of age, School Leaving Certificate was produced. Trial Court di- E rected the Investigating Officer to submit a report. Trial court since was not satisfied with the Report, directed medical examination of the accused for determination of his age. In view of the medial report, the trial court opined that his age on the day of incident i.e. on 18.1.2003 was F 19 years and 5 months and held him to a major on that date. The court denied to give weightage to the School Leaving Certificate. High Court in Revision, setting aside the order of trial court, remanded the matter back to trial court for fresh consideration. Trial Court again held him G to be a major on the basis of medical report. High Court in Revision again set aside the order of the trial court. Hence the present appeal. 911 H 912 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 9 S.C.R. A Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1 Determination of age of a 'juvenile in delin- quency' must be determined as and when an application is filed. It is no longer res integra that the relevant date for B determination of the age of the accused would be the date on which the occurrence took place. What would be the date on which offence has been committed in a given case has to be decided having regard to the fact situation ob- taining therein. [Paras 11 and 12] [918-E,F,G] c Pratap Singh v. state of Jarkhand and Anr. 2005 (3) SCC 551 - relied on. 2. Criminal Laws in India contemplate a continuing offence. If an offence has been a continuing offence, then the age of the juvenile in delinquency should be deter- D mined with reference to the date on which the offence is said to have been committed by the accused. It may be • true that the prosecution proceeded on the basis that the entire offence had taken place on 18th January, 2003. From a perusal of the charge-sheet, it appears that the E appellant had been getting calls for payment of ransom despite the fact that the deceased had, in the meanwhile, been killed. It is one thing to say that a missing report has been filed on a particular date but it is another thing to say that in a case of this nature when the actual offence(s) F had taken place would remain uncertain. Giving calls for payment of ransom is an offence. In case of murder coupled with abduction in a given case may be consid- ered to be a continuous offence. In view the facts of the case, the matter may be considered afresh in the light of G the provisions of Section 472 Cr.P.C. by the trial court. [Paras 12 and 17] [918-G, 918-B-E, 922-C,D] Ravinder Singh Gorkhi v. State of UP. 2006 (5) SCC 584; Jitendra Ram alias Jitu v. Stateof Jharkhand, 2006 (9) SCC 428; Jyoti Prakash Rai@ Jyoti Prakash v. State of Bihar, H JT 2008 (3) SC 397; Batu @ Bakthvatcha/u vs. State of .. VIMAL CHADHA v. VIKAS CHOUDHARY AND 913 ANOTHER [S.B. SINHA, J.] Tamilnadu, JT 2008 (2) SC 321; Jameel v. State of Maharashtra A 2007 (2) SCALE 32 - referred to. CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Ap- peal No. 966 of 2008 From the final Judgment and Order dated 11.09.2007 of B the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Criminal Revision Peti- tion No. 156 of 2007. Kiran Suri for the Appellant. Subhash Kaushik, Rashmi Malhotra, D.S. Mahra, G.K. c Kaushik, Anil Kumar Sharma, Vivek Sharma and K.S. Rana for the Respondents. Sunil Dutta Mishra for the lmpleading party. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.B. SINHA, J. 1. Leave granted . 2. How to determine the age of a juvenile in delinquency within the meaning of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection D of Children) Act, 2000 (for short 'the Act') is in ques
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.