Supreme Court Judgment [Ketankumar Gopalbhai Tandel Vs. State of Gujarat] Criminal Appeal No. 556 of 2004 K.S. Radhakrishnan, J. 1. The question that falls for consideration in this appeal is whether or not the appellant, who was admittedly not a juvenile within the meaning of the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 (for short ‘the 1986 Act’) when offences were committed but had not completed 18 years of age, on that date, will be governed by the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act,2000 (for short ‘the 2000 Act’) and be declared as a juvenile in relation to the offences alleged to have been committed by him. 2. The appellant herein was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Valsad (trial court) in Sessions Case No. 133 of 1995 for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’) and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs1000/- and in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 15days for an offence punishable under Section 302, IPC and to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 2 months and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 7 days for an offence punishable under Section 324, IPC. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The accused preferred Criminal Appeal No. 366 of 1997 before the High Court of Gujarat, the same was dismissed vide judgment dated24.07.2003 against which this appeal has been preferred. 3. Shri S.C. Patel, learned counsel appearing for the appellant raised a preliminary contention that the appellant has to be treated as a juvenile on 06.05.1995 i.e. the date of occurrence, in view of the provision of the2000 Act, since his date of birth being 01.06.1977. On 06.05.1995, it was pointed out that the appellant was 17 years, 11 months and 5 days, hence less than 18 years and is, therefore, entitled to get the benefit of the2000 Act. 4. Ms. Hemantika Wahi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the appellant is governed by the 1986 Act and under the 1986Act all persons who were above the age of 16 years on the date of the commission of the offence would not be treated as juveniles and since the appellant was aged more than 16 years on the date of occurrence hence would not get the benefit of juvenility. Learned counsel submitted that the trial court as well as the High Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant and thus calls for no interference by this Court. Click link for full judgement: lawintellectindia/supreme-court-judgment-ketankumar-gopalbhai-tandel-vs-state-of-gujarat-dated-july-18-2013/
Posted on: Mon, 22 Jul 2013 08:41:03 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015