Gopal Singh @ Bablu vs State of Punjab

R.L. Anand, J.

This is a criminal appeal and has been directed against the judgment and order dated 14.5.1987 passed by the Court of Sessions Judge, Amritsar, who convicted Gopal Singh alias Bablu and his mother Miran Devi under Section 304 PartI and S. 450 I.P.C. with the aid of Section 34 I.P.C. and sentenced them to undergo R.I. for a period of 7 years each and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/ each; in default of payment of fine each one of them was directed to further undergo RI for 6 months under Section 450 I.P.C. The appellants were further sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years each and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/ each; in default of payment of fine each one of them was directed to further undergo R.I. for 6 months under Section 304 PartI read with Section 34 I.P.C. Both the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently by the trial Court.

The facts of this case may not be repeated in this order at a greater length in view of the fact that I am going to upset the judgment and order of the trial Court on the short ground that the trial Court has not conducted the inquiry which was necessary on its part in order to determine whether Gopal Singh alias Bablu was juvenile on the date of commission of offence or not. In this case the death of Bachitar Singh took place on 8.7.1986. The allegations against Gopal Singh alias Bablu and Miran Devi are that both of them pushed Bachitar Singh from the roof of the kotha, as a result of which Bachitar Singh fell in the courtyard from a distance of 10 feet which was the height of the kotha. As a result of that fall/push given by the appellants, Bachitar Singh died and the occurrence was witnessed by Sukhjinder Singh, Sukhdev Singh and Manjinder Kaur. The record of this case shows that Gopal Singh was arrested by the police on 13.7.1986. Fortunately, identification slips were prepared. At the time of arrest of Gopal Singh, his age has been given by ASI Raghunath as 16/17 years while the age of Miran Devi has been mentioned as 38 years. The challan was submitted in the Court of Illaqa Magistrate, who also recorded the age of Gopal @ Bablu on the date of commitment as 17 years. At that stage also the Magistrate did not hold any inquiry with regard to the fact whether Gopal Singh was a juvenile or not. Charges were framed against Gopal Singh and his mother Miran Devi on 7.1.1987 and at that time Gopal Singh gave his age as 15/16 years.

The record of the lower Court shows that the learned Sessions Judge, Amritsar also did not order for the conducting of any inquiry as to whether the plea of Gopal Singh prima facie has a grain of truth or not. If a person is found to be juvenile on the date of commission of the offence, he cannot be tried by the ordinary Courts. His trial has to be conducted by a Juvenile Court. As per Section 2(h) "juvenile" means a boy who has not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who has not attained the age of eighteen years. Gopal Singh appellant has taken a specific stand before the learned Sessions Judge that he was 15/16 years and was a student. In these circumstances it was obligatory on the part of the learned Sessions Judge to conduct the inquiry as per the provisions of Section 32 of the Juvenile Justice Act. If a person is found to be juvenile, he could not be tried with a person who is not a juvenile. If he is found to be juvenile on the date of commission of the offence, the trial would stand vitiated.

In these circumstances, I direct the learned District & Sessions Judge, Amritsar to conduct an inquiry as to whether Gopal Singh alias Bablu was a juvenile on the date of commission of the offence i.e. 8.7.1986 and submit his report to the High Court within four months from the receipt of the copy of the order.

The parties can lead such evidence before the Court of Session in support of their respective cases. The Registry is directed to send the entire record of this appeal to the learned District & Sessions Judge, Amritsar in order to facilitate him to conduct the inquiry. The appeal shall be put up after the receipt of the report.