Revision petition demanding the reduction of punishment to juvenile dismissed to serve the ends of justice – Jharkhand high court
In a criminal revision petition directed against the Criminal Appeal No. 63 of 2009 the petitioner was found guilty of committing the offenses under Sections 302/34 and 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sent to a special home for 3 years the judgment was given by the juvenile justice authority and is reviewed the learned appellate court and is found to be appropriate the present application was filed to revise this judgment and is heard by a single bench of HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY in the case of Arun Kumar Prajapati versus The state of Jharkhand (Cr. Revision No. 585 of 2012).
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the case will not be argued on behalf of merit but the point of a sentence imposed upon the petitioner. The petitioner was juvenile at the time and was booked under Sections 302/34 and 201/34 of IPC. Currently, the present age of the petitioner Is 34 years, and accordingly, the conviction can be upheld but for the punishment, the counsel relied on the case of 1999 (1) PLJR 732 (SC) (Devendra Yadav –vs- The State of Bihar) and 1990 CriLJ 2671 (SC) (Bhoop Ram –vs- State of U.P.) and 2008 (4) JCR 373 (Jhr.) Ashok Kumar Singh -vs- State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) and the punishment may be set aside in the case.
The learned counsel on behalf of the respondents submits that the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner and submitted that concurrent findings have been recorded by the learned Juvenile Justice Board and the learned appellate court and accordingly, no interference is called for in revisional jurisdiction.
The learned court after hearing the parties finds that the judgment given by the juvenile justice board had found the petitioner and his relatives guilty of causing dowry death as per the presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act and under Sections 302/34 and 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code and the petitioner was sent to a special home for 03 years. The learned appellate court again considered the pieces of evidence and reviewed the judgment and found out that the judgment passed by the learned Juvenile Justice Board is legal, proper, and sustainable in the eye of law and refused to interfere and confirmed the same and the learned court also does not find any illegality or perversity in the findings recorded by the learned courts below in their judgments and this court is of the view that the offense has been committed by the petitioner and therefore, reducing the punishment of the petitioner would not serve the ends of justice and with this, the petitioner does not deserve any reduction in the punishment. Accordingly, the period of detention of the petitioner is also maintained. The judgments relied upon by the learned counsel of the petitioner do not apply to the facts and circumstances of the present case where the allegations against the petitioner were enquired into as a juvenile before the Juvenile Justice Board under Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000.
This court founds the judgment and order by the lower courts to be appropriate and dismissed the revision petition.
Judgment reviewed by Naveen Sharma