SHARMA, J. - (1.) THE appellants three in number were placed on trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge Neemkathana (Sikar) in Sessions Case No. 31/97 for having committed murder of Rohitash and the learned Judge vide judgment dated March 8. 1999 convicted and sentenced all the three appellants under Section 302 read to undergo imprisonment for Life Imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine to further suffer 6 months simple imprisonment. THE appellants in the instant appeal have assailed the aforequotted finding of the learned trial Judge.
(2.) THE police station Ajeetgarh recorded a parcha bayan of informant Likmichand on June 24, 1997wherein he stated that on the said day at about 7. 00 PM when his son Rohitash was returning to the house the appellants Babloo, Dharma and Ram Swaroop came out of their house armed with farsi and Lathis and started inflicting blows with farsi and lathis on the person of Rohitash, who died on the way while taken to the hospital. Case under section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC was registered and investigation commenced. On completion of the investigation charge sheet was filed. In due course the case came up for trial before learned Additional Sessions Judge Neemkathana (Sikar), who framed charge under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. THE appellants denied the charge and claimed to be tried. THE prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 12 witnesses. In the explanation under Section 313 Cr. P. C. the appellants claimed innocence. One witness was examined in defence. THE learned trial Judge on hearing final submissions convicted and sentenced the appellants as indicated herein above. By filling an application under the provisions of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (for Short `juvenile Justice Act') appellant Babloo canvassed that he could not have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment as on the date of incident he was juvenile. This Court vide order dated May 27, 2003 directed the Additional Sessions Judge Neemka Thana (Sikar) to conduct an enquiry in order to ascertain the age of Babloo on the date of incident. Learned Additional Sessions Judge after conducting detailed enquiry observed that date of birth of Babloo was June 10, 1981 and on the date of the incident i. e. on June 24, 1997, the age of appellant Babloo was 16 years and 14 days. In order to appreciate the submissions advanced before us we have carefully scanned the material on record. The superstructure of the prosecution case is founded on he testimony of Smt. Gulab (PW. 5), Smt. Rukma (PW. 6) and Likmichand (PW. 7 ). Dr. Gauri Shankar Sharma (PW. 8) conducted the autopsy on the dead body of Rohitash. Whereas the case was investigated by Chauthmal (PW. 11) and Surat Singh (PW. 12 ). A look at the post mortem report (Ex. P-4) goes to show that Rohitash sustained three incised wounds on parieto occipital region and cause of his death was primary shock caused by injuries to brain with excessive bleeding.
(3.) ON a close scrutiny of the prosecution evidence we find that injuries with Farsi have been attributed to appellant Babloo. Allegations against appellants Ram Swaroop and Dharma that they inflicted lathi blows on the person of Rohitash do not find support from the medical evidence. Although Gulab (PW. 5) and Rukma (PW. 6) improved their version at the trial and attributed injuries with Farsis to appellants Ram Swaroop and Dharma but we find ourselves unable to place any reliance on their statements qua Ram Swaroop and Dharma as the case of the prosecution from the very beginning was that Ram Swaroop and Dharma had lathis. In such a situation possibility of over implication of Ram Swaroop and Dharma cannot be ruled out. The prosecution evidence qua the appellant Babloo is consistent and it has been established beyond reasonable doubt that appellant Babloo caused the fatal injuries on the head of Rohitash with farsi. The prosecution is able to establish the charge under Section 302 read with section 34 IPC against appellant Babloo beyond reasonable doubt and we are of the view that learned trial Judge has rightly convicted him under the said section. Turning on to the scheme of Juvenile Justice Act it appears that pursuant to the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sheela Barse vs. Union of India (1), the Parliament enacted Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 (Act No. 53 of 1986 ). The said Act was re-drafted and re-enacted as Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2000. (for short `juvenile Justice Act') which came into existence with effect from April 1, 2001. While enacting the Act the Parliament considered United Nations standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Consideration of Juvenile Justice Act, 1985 (the Beijing Rules), the United Nations Rules for the Protection of Juveniles deprived of their liberty (1990) and all other relevant international instruments and conventions on the rights of child held by the General Assembly United Nations on November 20, 1989 which was rectified by the Government of India on December 11, 1992 to achieve the objectives underline therein. The Act was enacted to consolidate and amend the law relating to Juveniles in conflict with law and children in need of care and protection, by providing for proper care, protection and treatment by catering to their development needs, and by adopting a child friendly approach in the adjudication and disposition of matters in best interest of children and for their ultimate rehabilitation through various institutions established under this enactment. ;