The Allahabad High Court, on December 24, 2021, acquitted a murder convict in a 38-year-old case and sent the other to the Juvenile Justice Board to determine the fine imposed. The Division Bench of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Sameer Jain set aside the conviction awarded to appellant Saleem by the trial court and acquitted him of all charges. The Court, however, was of the view that appropriate punishment ought to be awarded to another appellant Brijendra Singh—who had claimed during the pendency of the appeal that he was a juvenile on the date of the incident, July 12, 1980—by imposing a fine.
Brijendra Singh and Saleem were convicted on September 29, 1983, by an order passed by 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Farrukhabad (State vs Harnath Singh and others) and awarded life imprisonment for offences committed under Sections 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code as well as six months’ rigorous imprisonment for offences committed under Sections 147 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code.
The case of the prosecution was that on July 22, 1980, at about 9.30 am, Kanchan Singh lodged an FIR against Brijendra Singh, Saleem and five other co-accused at police station in Kannauj district of Farrukhabad, Uttar Pradesh. As per the FIR, on July 22, 1980, at about 7 am, when the nephew of Kanchan Singh (the informant), Dhirendra Singh, was returning after attending the nature’s call, Brijendra Singh and Saleem along with five other co-accused confronted him, and co-accused Harnath Singh fired at Dhirendra Singh with his licensed gun while another co-accused Aditya Singh opened fire from his country-made pistol, which hit Rajendra, the son of Kanchan Singh. In the incident, Dhirendra Singh died. The incident was said to have taken place due to long-standing enmity between both the parties. It was further stated in the FIR that a number of civil and criminal cases against the parties were pending in court.
It was the case of the prosecution from the beginning that after commission of the offence, Saleem along with other accused entered the house of another co-accused Shivnath Singh to hide and the villagers surrounded the house of Shivnath Singh. This indicates that there was no scope for Saleem to escape from the house of Shivnath Singh.
As per Section 149 IPC, to convict a person under the Section, it is necessary to prove the following allegations—(1) the offence is committed by any member of an unlawful assembly, (2) the offence must be committed in prosecution of the common object of an unlawful assembly, or such as the members of that assembly knew to be likely to be committed in prosecution of that object. The role of causing firearm injuries to Dhirendra Singh (the deceased) was specifically attributed to co-accused Harnath Singh while the role of causing firearm injury to injured Rajendra Singh was attributed to accused Aditya Singh.
The Court held that as per Section 146 IPC, whenever force or violence is used by an unlawful assembly, or by any member thereof, in prosecution of the common object of such assembly, every member of such assembly is guilty of the offence of rioting. In view of the above discussion, the Court allowed the appeal filed by Saleem and set aside his conviction awarded by the trial court under Sections 302/149, 323 and 147 IPC and acquitted him of all the charges.
As far as the appeal filed by Brijendra Singh is concerned, the Court partly allowed his appeal and set aside his conviction under Sections 302/149 IPC, but his conviction under Section 147 IPC was maintained. The Court also set aside the conviction of Brijendra Singh awarded by the trial court under Section 323 IPC, but convicted him under Section 323/149 IPC. On his plea, the Court on February 26, 2018, directed the Juvenile Justice Board to hold a proper enquiry in accordance with the law as provided under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, to ascertain whether on the date of the incident, Brijendra Singh was a juvenile or not.
The Juvenile Justice Board in its enquiry found that the age of Brijendra Singh on the date of incident, July 22, 1980, was 17 years 9 months and 13 days and submitted its report on October 12, 2018. In spite of the opportunity to file an objection to the report of the Juvenile Justice Board, dated October 12, 2018, no objection was filed.
The Court observed that, “when we compare the provisions of Section 21 of Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, with the provisions of Section 18 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, we find that there exist similar provisions for orders that could be passed in respect of a juvenile in conflict with the law, including direction to pay fine. Hence, by applying the law laid down by the apex court in Jitendra Singh’s case (supra) and by keeping in mind the provisions of Section 18(1), the original appeal against the conviction was filed by the seven accused. Of the seven, only Brijendra Singh and Saleem survive.”
The juvenile appeal was seen in another case 40 years after the incident. The Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court declared a 56-year-old accused as a juvenile, sentencing him to punishment already undergone in a case of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The High Court decided the plea of juvenility of the convict on the direction of the apex court and the order was passed by a bench comprising Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Vivek Varma.
The Juvenile Justice Board, Ambedkar Nagar, in October 2017, had declared the convict, Sangram, a juvenile, but while deciding the appeal finally on October 11, 2018, the High Court did not consider this fact. The High Court, in fact, had partly allowed the appeal of convicts Ram Kumar and Sangram by upholding the conviction, but modifying the sentence under Section 304 (1) of IPC sentenced them to undergo 10 years in jail.
Sangram challenged the High Court verdict in the Supreme Court, pleading that the High Court committed a grave error in deciding the appeal against him without considering his plea of juvenility that can be raised at any stage of the criminal proceedings. The Supreme Court on August 27, 2021, remitted the matter back to the High Court for deciding the plea of juvenility. The wheels of justice continue to turn slowly.
—By Adarsh Patel and India Legal Bureau