Amrik Singh alias Bittu vs State of Punjab

A. P. Chowdhri, J.

Amrik Singh alias Bittu (14/15) was tried by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kapurthala. By judgment and order dated March 6,1991, he was convicted under Section 304 Part 1 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 1,000/. In default, he was further sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months.

The First Information Report in this case was lodged by Gurdial Singh PW1, father of Balbir Singh (22) deceased. According to Gurdial Singh, Paramjit Kaur alias Pami, elder sister of Amrik Singh alias Bittu accused came to the house of Gurdial Singh''s brother Dalip Singh at about 2 p.m. on December 11, 1989, at village Maksudpur. She was followed there by the accused, who started beating his sister by pulling her from the long hair. It was apparently because the accused did not like his sister to mix with Balbir Singh (deceased). Balbir Singh (deceased) happened to come there and he intervened and asked the accused as to why he was beating his sister and he rescued her from him. Paramjit Kaur went away to her house. Amrik Singh accused, however, started throwing brickbat at Balbir Singh, who went inside the Haveli of his uncle Dalip Singh and bolted the door from inside. Amrik Singh alias Bittu continued to be present in the street. After some time when Balbir Singh came out of the Haveli, the accused threw a brickbat hitting Balbir Singh on the head. As a result thereof Balbir Singh fell down on the ground. The incident was witnessed by Balbir Singh''s father Gurdial Singh and an aunt Smt. Sukhjinder Kaur PW2, wife of Balbir Singh''s other uncle Rattan Singh. They rushed to the spot and picked up Balbir Singh. He was removed to the clinic of one Dr. Satwant Singh, a relative of Gurdial Singh PWI at Village Begowal. Dr. Satwant Singh found the injuries to be of serious nature and, therefore, the injured was removed to Civil Hospital, Jalandhar. At Jalandhar, they were informed that the Civil Hospital concerned was Civil Hospital, Kapurthala, as the incident had taken place in jurisdiction of that Civil Hospital. Accordingly, the injured was taken to Kapurthala, where he was given firstaid and referred to Christian Medical College and Hospital, Ludhiana, reaching there at 10.30 p.m. Balbir Singh succumbed to his injuries at 5.30 a.m. on the following day i.e. December 12, 1989. Gurdial Singh PWI lodged the First Information Report by doing to Police Station a Bholath district Kapurthala at 12.45 p.m. Copy of the special report was received by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class Kapurthala, at 5 p.m.

At the trial, the prosecution examined both the eyewitnesses Gurdial Singh PWI and Smt. Sukhjinder Kaur PW2. They supported the version set out above. The prosecution also examined Dr. Satwant Singh (PW4) and Dr. S. K. Sharma (PW6). The latter had conducted the postmortem examination on the dead body of Balbir Singh. He described various injuries found on the deceased, the main injury being on the left temporal region just above the left ear of the deceased besides two minor injuries on the right eye and back of the right elbow. The investigating officer was also examined.

The plea of the accused was one of denial. He produced no evidence in defence.

On an evaluation of the evidence, the trial Court accepted the eyewitness account, convicted and sentenced the accused as already stated. Hence this appeal.

Mr. P. S. Mann, Senior Advocate, learned counsel for the appellant states that it is not necessary for him to go into the merits of the case against the appellant. His main contention is that the appellant was undisputedly 14/15 years of ago on the date of occurrence. He was, thus, a juvenile within the meaning of the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act'') and he could only be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of Section 20 of the Act, but not by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. He further submitted that under Section 21 of the Act, the appellant could at the worst be sent to a special home under Section 21(1) (d) of the Act until he attained the age of 18 years. Mr. Mann farther submitted that according to the school leaving certificate (Exhibit P.C.) proved by the prosecution itself, the date of birth of the appellant was January 12, 1975 and he was, thus, going to complete the age of 18 years on January 22, 1993. He also submitted that at the time of admission of the appeal, the appellant had been directed to be released on bail.

Mr. Mehtab Singh, learned Assistant Advocate General appearing for the State has not controverted the above facts. In the charge framed by the trial court dated April 2, 19?0, the age of the accused was mentioned as 14/15 years. The trial proceeded. At the conclusion of the trial, the statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded on February 6, 1991, and again the age of the accused mentioned was 14/15 years. In the course of the trial, the prosecution examined Mr. Sewa Singh, Head Master, Government High School, Maksudpur as PW3. He proved certificate (Exhibit PC) as having been issued by the school on the basis of the school record in which the date of birth of Amrik Singh was given as January 22, 1975. There is no other material on record which would suggest any other date of birth of the accused. Under Section 2(h) of the Act, a boy who has not attained the age of 16 is a juvenile. There can be no dispute that the appellant was a juvenile on the date of the occurrence as he was 14 years, 10 months and 19 days old on that date. It has not been shown to us that the Additional Sessions Judge exercised the powers of Juvenile Court at the material time. It follows that the appellant was not tried by a Juvenile Court in accordance with Section 20 of the Act nor was he dealt with in accordance with any of the modes laid down in Section 21 of the Act. It may also be added that no, enquiry as envisaged under Section 32 of the Act with regard to determination of the age of the appellant was undertaken at any stage in this case. Learned counsel for the appellant invited our attention to a recent decision of the Supreme Court in Bhoop Ram v. State of U.P., 1989(1) Recent Criminal Reports 573 : 1989(2) Crimes 294 in which the appellant was below 16 years of age on the date of occurrence. Instead of dealing with him under the U. P. Children Act, 1951, which was applicable to his case, he was tried by the Additional Sessions Judge and convicted for various offences including Section 302, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to imprisonment for life etc. At the time when the appeal came up for hearing before the apex Court, the appellant was more that 28 years of age and could not be sent to an approved school in terms of the provisions of the U. P. Children Act, 1951. In these circumstances, their Lordships of the Supreme Court maintained the conviction but quashed the sentence awarded to the appellant and directed his release forthwith.

For the reasons recorded above, we find that no useful purpose would be served by sending the Appellant to a special home in terms of Section 2 1 (1)(d) of the Act as he would attain the age of 18 years on January 22, 1993, i.e. in about five weeks, time from now. Instead, the only course open to us is to quash the sentence imposed on the appellant by the trial Court while maintaining the conviction. This would include the setting aside of the order imposing fine. We order accordingly. His bail bond shall stand discharged.

Before parting with this judgment, we would like to express our anguish on two matters. Firstly, we were taken to Civil Hospital, Jalandhar, with serious head injury, the doctor (s) failed to show the bare minimum sensitivity and sense or responsibility and instead of treating the patient immediately referred him to be taken to a much smaller hospital at Kapurthala for the technical reason that the occurrence had taken place within the jurisdiction of that hospital. We cannot adequately condemn such an attitude.

The other aspect which requires to be mentioned is that even though from the very beginning the age of the appellant was stated to be 14/15, the Additional Sessions Judge failed to take note of the relevant provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, so that the appellant could be dealt with according to law.

The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.