Gulzar Singh vs State of Punjab and others

Petitioner has filed this petition for setting aside order

dated 01.08.2013 passed by Principal Magistrate, juveniles

Justice Board, Patiala and order dated 10.06.2014 passed by

Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala whereby order to put

respondents No.2 and 3 on community service in Rajindra

Hospital, Patiala from 12.08.2013 to 12.09.2013 under

supervision of Chief Medical Officer was upheld.

The son of the petitioner Happy @ Kamaljit Singh

was murdered by respondents No.2 and 3 on 09.03.2004. FIR

was registered against respondents No.2 and 3. Respondents

No.2 and 3 were tried by the juveniles Justice Board, Patiala,

where they confessed their guilt and were accordingly convicted

by the Principal Magistrate, juveniles Justice Board, Patiala vide

judgment dated 01.08.2013. An order of sentence was passed

by the Principal Magistrate, juveniles Justice Board directing the

respondents No.2 and 3 to perform community service at

Rajindra Hospital, Patiala under the supervision of Chief Medical

Officer from 12.08.2013 to 12.09.2013.

The said order was assailed by the petitioner in

appeal before Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala who dismiss

the same vide judgment dated 10.06.2014.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that

respondents No.2 and 3 confessed their guilt after attaining

majority and therefore, order of performing community service

for the period in question was not adequate in terms of Section

15 of The juveniles Justice (Care and Protection of Children)

Act, 2000. The case should have been considered by the

Principal Magistrate, juveniles Justice Board under Section 15(g)

and they were required to be sent to a special house for a period

of three years.

I have considered the submissions made by learned

counsel at the bar.

Section 15 of the juveniles Justice (Care and

Protection of Children) Act, 2000 is reproduced as under:-

"15. Order that may be passed regarding

juveniles.-(1) Where a Board is satisfied on inquiry

that a juvenile has committed an offence, then,

notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained

in any other law for the time being in force, the

Board may, if it so thinks fit,-

(a) allow the juvenile to go home after advice or

admonition following appropriate inquiry against

and counselling to the parent or the guardian and

the juvenile;

(b) direct the juvenile to participate in group

counselling and similar activities;

(c) order the juvenile to perform community

service;

(d) order the parent of the juvenile or the

juveniles himself to pay a fine, if he is over

fourteen years of age and earns money;

(e) direct the juvenile to be released on probation

of good conduct and placed under the care of any

parent, guardian or other fit person, on such

parent, guardian or other fit person executing a

bond, with or without surety, as the Board may

require, for the good behaviour and well-being of

the juvenile for any period not exceeding three

years;

(f) direct the juvenile to be released on probation

of good conduct and placed under the care of any

fit institution for the good behaviour and well-being

of the juvenile for any period not exceeding three

years;

(g) make an order directing the juvenile to be

sent to a special home for a period of three years:"

In terms of Section 15(c), order for performing the

community service by the juvenile-accused is one of the mode

prescribed under the said scheme in the event of finding that the

juvenile has committed an offence.

On completion of inquiry, there are certain

dispositional alternatives wherein the juveniles can be asked to

undergo punishment under reformative mechanism.

Section 15(c) and (g) are amongst those dispositional

alternatives wherein juveniles in conflict with law can be ordered

to act. The juveniles were involved in case under Section 304-A

IPC on the allegations that on 09.03.2004 at about 3.00 PM in

the area of village Jakharan near Khanpur Relu, juveniles in

conflict with law by their act of rash and negligent driving caused

death of Happy @ Kamaljit Singh. The act of the juveniles in

conflict with law was treated to be an offence under Section 304-

A IPC.

Challan was presented and they were charge sheeted

under Section 304-A IPC. Besides the police report initiated on

the FIR under Section 304-A IPC, the complainant had also filed

complaint under Section 302 IPC. Accordingly charges were

framed in the criminal complaint as well. Due to oversight, both

the cases were not consolidated. The Board consolidated both

the cases in terms of Section 201 Cr.P.C.

In the complaint, it was alleged that on 09.03.2004,

complainant got a telephonic call that his son had been thrown

in Narwana Branch of Bhakhra Canal near railway bridge. The

complainant reached the spot and thereafter, he met one Nirmal

Singh who told him that since time had elapsed, no purpose

would be served by going to the spot. The complainant went

back to village Mandoli bridge and was informed by some

people that the dead body would surface only after 2-3 days.

The complainant came back to the village where he was

informed by his wife that at about 1.30 P.M., Malkit Singh and

Gagandeep Singh had come on a cycle and they took the

deceased along with them. The complainant went to police

station for lodging FIR in respect of murdering of his son but the

police did not take any action.

The dead body of the deceased Happy @ Kamaljit

Singh was spotted on 18.03.2004. The dead body was

subjected to post-mortem. Proceedings under Section 174

Cr.P.C. were done. Inquiry was conducted by DSP who

recommended the case under Section 304-A IPC. Thereafter,

the complaint in question came to be filed.

After leading preliminary evidence, charges under

Section 302 IPC were framed. That is, how, the proceedings

before the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board started

on finding the accused to be juveniles in conflict with law. The

juveniles in conflict with law confessed their guilt before the

Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board. On the basis of

such confession, the Board directed them to perform community

service in Rajindra Hospital, Patiala under supervision of Chief

Medical Officer.

From the record, it can be seen that the complainant

led no evidence in the complaint in order to establish the guilt of

the juvenile under Section 302 IPC over and above the

confession got recorded by them. The only incriminating feature

on record was the confession of the juveniles made in the Court.

Apparently, Juvenile Justice Board did not afford any opportunity

to the juvenile for re-consideration of their confession. The order

was passed by the Board only on the basis of confession of the

juveniles. However, there was some evidence recorded in the

state case under Section 304-A IPC. The guilt of the accused

was required to be proved beyond shadow of doubt.

In terms of Section 15(g), the juvenile in conflict with

law could have been sent to Special Home, reformatory, bostal

jail for three years. Apparently, when the cases were ordered to

be heard in terms of Section 210 IPC, the complainant did not

press for amendment of the charge in the state case qua which

some evidence had come on record. A statement was made by

the complainant on 31.07.2013. When the accused had

confessed the guilt, the complainant did not press the

application for amendment of charge in the state case, therefore,

cumulative appreciation of facts on record can be made to the

effect that the complainant had an opportunity to seek

amendment of charge in the state case which was not availed

of. Only confession made by juvenile in conflict with law was

availed before the Juvenile Justice Board without giving any

opportunity to the juvenile to re-consider their option.

In totality of facts and circumstances of the case, it

was thought appropriate by the Juvenile Justice Board to pass

one of the dispositional sentence as provided under Section 15

of The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act,

2000.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that

even after the order in question, the respondents did not mend

their ways and have committed subsequent offence under

Section 324, 506, 34 IPC for which FIR No.123 dated

08.06.2014 was registered against them in Police Station,

Rajpura. It can be found that the order passed by Principal

Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board was passed on 08.08.2013.

The period for performing the community service was from

12.08.2013 to 12.09.2013. Apparently, there was no stay

granted against the dispositional punishment passed by the

Juvenile Justice Board and the said period has already expired.

In view of attending circumstances of the case, I do

not see any scope for interference in the orders passed by the

Courts below.

Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed.