Supreme Court of India
KAMLENDRA SINGH @ PAPPU SINGH versus STATE OF M.P.
- Decided
- 15 March 2013
- Judges listed
- K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, DIPAK MISRA
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
Citations
- Official
- [2013] 4 S.C.R. 236 · 2013 INSC 165
- Not shown
- 1 other citation string that other judgments attach to this one, on evidence too thin or too divided to publish.
Cited by
We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.
Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.
The Court's text
Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.
Leave granted.
p. 237
The appellant, along with two .others, were charge sheeted for offences punishable under Sections 341, 294, 307 read with Section 34 IPC for conspiring to murder of one Atul Mishra on 27 .8.1993 in Rewa at Allahabad Road, near Kalewa Hotel. For the said purpose, the appellant accused gave a country made pistol to the accused Raj Kumar Singh and exhorted him to shoot Atul Mishra. Raj Kumar Singh fired at Atul E Mishra with the said country made pistol and he succumbed to his injuries.
p. 237
The trial Court convicted him under Sections 341, 307 read with Section 34 IPC, but acquitted him of the charges F under Section 294 IPC. For the offence under Section 341 IPC, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month and for the offence under Section 307 IPC, he was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year along with a fine of Rs.500/-. Both the sentences were directed to run G concurrently ..
p. 237
On appeal, the High Court set aside the conviction and sentence for the offence punishable under Section 341 IPC, but the conviction as well as the sentence awarded for offence punishable under Section 307 IPC was maintained, against H which this appeal has been preferred.
pp. 237–238
Shri S.K. Dubey, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant, submitted that the appellant was a juvenile on the date of the incident i.e. 27.8.1993, though the claim of juvenility was not raised either before the trial Court or the High Court. In order to establish the date of birth of the accused, the High School Board Mark-sheet /Certificate and a copy of the admission register were produced before this Court. Those documents would indicate that on the date of the incident, the date of birth of the accused is 25.2.1977. If that be so, the age of the accused on the date of the incident was 16 years 6 months and 2 days.
p. 238, margin A
When the matter came up for hearing on 9.11.2012, this Court directed the State of Madhya Pradesh to find out whether the appellant was a juvenile on the date of the incident and the veracity of the documents mentioned above. The State Government got those documents verified through the Additional Superintendent of Police and reported that the documents are genuine .
p. 238, margin C
Going by those documents, evidently, the date of birth of the appellant is 25.2.1977. If that be so, the appellant was a juvenile on the date of the incident. We have extensively examined the provisions of the Juvenile of Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 in Ashwani Kumar Saxena v. State of M.P. (2012) 9 sec 750 and we are of the view that the principle laid down in the above judgment squarely applies to the facts of the present case. Under such circumstances, we are inclined to set aside the sentence awarded by the trial Court, confirmed by the High Court and the case records are directed to be placed before the concerned Juvenile Justice Board for awarding the appropriate sentence. Ordered accordingly.
p. 238, margin C
The appeal is allowed as above. K.K.T. Appeal allowed.
p. 238, margin G