SHARMA, J. - (1.) CHALLENGE in these appeals is to the judgments dated September 23, 1997 and July 19, 2003 of learned Special Judge, Dacoity Affected Area, Dholpur, whereby Pooran and Natthi Singh @ Natthu, appellants herein, were convicted and sentenced as under:- Pooran: U/s. 302 IPC: To suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year. U/s. 3/25 Arms Act: To suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months. The substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Natthi Singh @ Natthu: U/s. 302/34 IPC: To suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for one month.
(2.) THE prosecution story is woven like this:- Informant Bhagwan das (Pw. 1) submitted a written report (Ex. P-1) at Police Station Kotwali Dholpur on September 2, 1992 at 10 PM with the averments that out of two persons who came to the outer door of his house, one Pooran opened fire and caused gun shot injury on the person of Doji, as a result of which Doji died on the spot. On that report case under section 302 IPC was registered and investigation commenced. After usual investigation charge sheet was filed. In due course the case came up for trial before the learned Special Judge, Dacoity Affected Area, Dholpur. Since Natthi Singh @ Natthu absconded during trial, the trial proceeded only against Pooran. Charges under sections 302 IPC and 3/25 Arms Act were framed against Pooran, who denied the charges and claimed trial. THE prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 17 witnesses. In the explanation under Sec. 313 Crpc, Pooran claimed innocence. No witness in defence was however examined. Learned trial Judge on hearing final submissions convicted and sentenced Pooran as indicated herein above. In the event of arrest of absconder Natthi Singh, separate trial was conducted and learned trial Judge on the strength of 17 prosecution witnesses, convicted and sentenced Natthi Singh under section 302/34 IPC as indicated herein above. Having scanned the record we notice that this court on February 11, 1998 directed learned trial Judge to conduct inquiry about the age of Pooran. Pursuant to the said directions learned trial Judge initiated inquiry and on the basis of testimony of Dr. Adarsh Saxena and Shanti Devi observed that on the date of incident Pooran was below 16 years of age. The finding arrived at against appellant Pooran has not been assailed by learned counsel on merits. The only contention of learned counsel is that since in view of section 2 (k) of Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act,2000 (for short `jj Act') appellant Pooran was juvenile on the date of occurrence, he could not have been ordered to undergo imprisonment as provided by Section 20 of JJ Act. In order to appreciate the submissions advanced before us we deem it necessary to have a close look at the JJ Act which came into existence with effect from April 1, 2001. Section 20 of JJ Act provides special provisions in respect of pending cases and speaks that notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, all proceedings in respect of a juvenile pending in any court in any area on the date on which this Act came into force in that area, shall be continued in that Court as if this Act had not been passed and if the Court finds that the juvenile has committed an offence, it shall record such finding and instead of passing any sentence in respect of the juvenile, forward the juvenile to the Board which shall pass orders in respect of that juvenile in accordance with the provisions of this Act as if it had been satisfied on inquiry under this Act that a juvenile has committed the offence.
(3.) AS per sub rule 2 of Rule 62 of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Rules,2001 (for short `jj Rules') all pending cases which have not attained finality, shall be dealt with and disposed of in terms of the provisions of the JJ Act and the JJ Rules made thereunder. Section 6 of the JJ Act provides that Juvenile Justice Board shall deal exclusively with all proceedings under the JJ Act. Sub-section (2) of Section 6 of JJ Act however mandates that the powers conferred on the Board may also be exercised by the High Court and the Court of Sessions when the proceedings come before them in appeal, revision or otherwise. As per section 2 (k) of the JJ Act `juvenile' or `child' means a person who has not completed eighteenth year of age. Juvenile in conflict with law in view of section 2 (1) means a juvenile, who is alleged to have committed an offence. From the preamble of the JJ Act it appears that the said Act was enacted to consolidate and amend the law relating to juveniles in conflict with law i. e. juveniles who are alleged to have committed the offence. Although the definition of `juvenile' does not indicate that this age is to be seen on the date of occurrence but from the intention of Legislature as appeared from the Preamble we hold that the age is to be seen on the date of occurrence. Three Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Umesh Chandra vs. State of Rajasthan (1982)2 SCC 202) propounded that crucial date to determine whether the accused is a juvenile or not, is the date on which the offence was committed. ;