- (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) Appellant was convicted for commission of an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. He was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. Allegations against him were that on or about 9.5.1994 at about 1.00 p.m. he committed murder of one Pittala Chandrakala by pouring kerosene over her and setting her on fire with a matchstick.
(3.) One of the grounds taken by him during trial was that he was a juvenile within the meaning of the provisions of Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 (for short, "the said Act") on the date of commission of offence. Indisputably, the date of birth of the appellant is 10.5.1978. The question, however, which arises for consideration is as to whether he had completed the age of 16 years on 9.5.1994. During the trial, it appears, such a contention was rejected by the learned trial judge opining that he was not a juvenile as no reliance could be placed on the date of his birth recorded in the registers of the primary school. A revision application was filed thereagainst before the High Court. By reason of a judgment and order dated 26.7.2000, the matter was remanded back to the trial court. Relying on or on the basis of a decision of this Court in Arnit Das vs. State of Bihar, 2000 5 SCC 488, it was held that the date of production of the appellant before the learned Magistrate being 25.5.1994 and assuming that the date of birth of the accused was 10.5.1978, he was not a juvenile within the meaning of the provisions of the said Act. The learned Sessions Judge, held: "The learned Advocate feebly contended that the accused should be treated as a juvenile on the date of offence as per the decision reported in 2000 Supreme Court (Crl) 1270, ALT 2002 AP 511 page, ALT 2002 AP 485, SCC 2000 Vol. II page 1270 and AIR 1972, SC 1557. With due respect to all the above decisions, I express my inability to accept the contention of the learned advocates for the accused. As already stated by me earlier the accused in this case has preferred Criminal Revision Case No. 418 of 2000 before the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh aggrieved by the earlier order of this Court refusing to accept him as a juvenile. In the order dated 26.7.2000, the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh has specifically directed this Court to follow the decision reported in Arnit Das vs. State of Bihar, 2000 4 Supreme 186. Therefore, I am bound by the order of the Hon'ble High Court and I cannot take a divergent view. I therefore, find that there is no force in the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the accused in this behalf. I accept the contention of the learned Public Prosecutor that the accused was not a juvenile on the date when he was brought before the Court. On an analysis of the entire evidence on record, I hold that the prosecution has successfully driven home the guilt of the accused under Section 302 IPC beyond the reasonable doubt.";