BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J. - (1.) CRL. M.A. 18803/2010 is an application filed by the appellant claiming that he was a juvenile on the date of the incident, i.e., on 03.10.2006. Along with the application, the appellant has annexed a school leaving certificate which shows his date of birth to be 02.01.1989. On a previous date, we had directed the learned counsel for the State to have the said school certificate verified as also the date of the birth of the appellant as appearing in the record of the said school. A status report dated 27.01.2011 furnished by the Station House Officer of Police Station Civil Lines, Delhi-110 054, has been filed on behalf of the respondent/State. As per the said status report, the school transfer certificate of the appellant Vijay Kumar Yadav, son of Sh. Santosh Kumar Yadav, resident of Village Kasba Tali Ko Purva, Post Office- KNL, PS-Sultanpur, Distt. Sultanpur, UP, has been verified from the Jagrani Devi Vidhya Mandir Junior High School, Sultanpur, UP and the said transfer certificate has been found to be genuine. Along with the status report, the certificate given by the principal Sh. Devi Prasad Tiwari of the said school dated 20.01.2011 is also annexed along with an English translation thereof. As per the said certificate, the appellant had taken admission in Class VIII in the said school on 31.08.2000 and left the school on 21.05.2001 and his enrollment was deleted from the said school on 30.06.2001. It is also certified that as per the record of the school, the appellant's date of birth was 02.01.1989.
(2.) IN view of the foregoing, and in furtherance of the procedure to be followed in determination of the age of a juvenile as prescribed under Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, the age of the appellant has been determined to be seventeen years, nine months and one day on the date of the incident. This would qualify the appellant to be a juvenile as defined under Section 2(k) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 wherein juvenile has been defined to mean a person who has not completed 18 years of age. As per Section 16(1) of the said Act, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law for the time being in force, no juvenile in conflict with law can be sentenced to death or imprisonment for any term which may extend to imprisonment for life. The proviso after Section 16(2) also stipulates that the period of detention in a place of safety or under protective custody as provided in Section 16(1) and 16(2) shall not in any case exceed the maximum period as provided under Section 15 of the said Act. Section 15(1)(g) stipulates that the Board may direct a juvenile to be sent to a special home for period of three years. Thus, the maximum period of such detention, in any event, cannot be beyond a period of three years.
(3.) AS per the nominal roll, the appellant has already been in custody for a period of 4 years 3 months 25 days as on 01.02.2011 which is far in excess of the maximum period of three years as stipulated under the said Act. The learned counsel for the appellant does not challenge the order of conviction and requests that the benefit of being a juvenile be given to the appellant in so far as the sentence is concerned. Consequently, we do not disturb the impugned judgment in so far as the conviction is concerned. But, since the appellant, being a juvenile on the date of the incident, could not have been subjected to a period of incarceration in excess of three years as per the provisions of the said Act, his sentence is accordingly reduced to the maximum period of three years. Since he has already spent more time than the sentence that could have been awarded to him, he is directed to be released forthwith. This application and the appeal, in so far as the appellant Vijay Kumar Yadav is concerned, stands disposed of.;