KRISHAN ALIAS PANDIT Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
LAWS(SC)-1990-9-74
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: ALLAHABAD)
Decided on September 10,1990

KRISHAN ALIAS PANDIT Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

BHOOP RAM VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [FOLLOWED]



Cited Judgements :-

SURENDER SINGH VS. STATE [LAWS(DLH)-2007-8-183] [REFERRED TO]
SHER MOHAMMAD VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-1993-5-58] [REFERRED TO]
RAMESH VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2005-11-135] [REFERRED TO]
SHYAM NARAYAN SINGH VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-1991-11-19] [REFERRED TO]
REMNUMABTO ALIAS REYANUMABTO VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-1992-3-5] [REFERRED TO]
REWANT RAM VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR. [LAWS(RAJ)-2016-5-114] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)- Leave granted.
(2.)On the material now placed, it has been satisfactorily proved that the accused Sri Krishan alias Pandit, on the date of commission of the offence was nearing about 14 years. Without proper determination of his age both the Courts have convicted him under S.302 and sentenced to life imprisonment.
(3.)The question is whether the sentence could be sustained . The sentence, in our opinion, cannot be sustained in view of the mandatory provisions of Ss. 27 and 33 of U.P. Children Act, 1952 (Act No. 1 of 1952). S. 27 reads:
"Sentence that may not be passed on child: Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any law, no Court shall sentence a child to death or transportation or imprisonment for any term or commit him to prison in default of payment of fine.

Provided that a child who is 12 years of age or upwards may be committed to prison when the Court certifies that he is not fit to be sent to an approved school and that none of the other methods in which the case may legally be dealt with is suitable."

Section 33 reads as follows..

"Where a child charged with any offence is tried by any Court, and the Court is satisfied of his guilt the Court shall, before passing orders, take into consideration the manner in which, under the provisions of this or an other Act enabling the Court to deal with the case, the case should be dealt with, namely, whether-

(a) by discharging the offender after due admonition; or

(e) by releasing the offender on probation of good conduct; or

(g) by ordering the offender to pay a fine."

;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.