Citations: Umesh Chandra Vs State of Rajasthan, AIR 1982 SC 1057
Date of Judgment: 2 April 1982
Equivalent Citations: 1982 AIR 1057, 1982 SCR (3) 583
Case No: Criminal Appeal No. 439 of 1976
Case Type: Criminal Appeal
Appellant: Umesh Chandra
Respondent: State of Rajasthan
Bench: Hon’ble Justice Syed Murtaza Fazalali, Hon’ble Justice D.A Desai, Hon’ble Justice A. Varadarajan
Court: Supreme Court of India
Statutes Referred:
- Indian Penal Code, 1860; Sections 302, 364
- The Children’s Act, 1960; Sections 3, 21, 26
- The Indian Evidence Act, 1872; Sections 34, 35, 73, 74
Cases referred:
- Mohd Ikram Hussain Vs State of U.P, [1964] 5 S.C.R. 86, 100
- Abdul Majid Vs Bhargavam, A.I.R. 1963 Ker 18
- M/s. Gannon Dunkerlay & Co. Ltd Vs Their Workmen, [1972] 3 SCC 443
Facts:
- The appellant was charged under Section 364 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code,1860, in connection with an occurrence of crime that took place in Tonk district on 12 March 1973.
- The Rajasthan Children Act, 1970, provides that any person below the age of 16 years should be presumed to be a child and he who has committed the crime should be tried by a Children’s Court in accordance with the procedure laid down.
- The appellant as he was a child under the provisions of the Children Act was overruled by the trial court.
- The revision filed by the appellant against the decision of the trial court was dismissed by the High Court which held that The Children’s Act was not applicable to the appellant as that Act had not been enforced in Tonk district on the date of the occurrence. The High Court further held that the appellant had failed to prove that he was below the age of 16 years.
- Therefore, the appellant made an appeal to the Supreme Court.
Issues Involved:
- Whether The Children’s Act is applicable to the appellant?
- Whether the appeal can be allowed by the Supreme Court on the contentions of both the parties?
Contention of Appellant:
The counsel for Appellant contented that:
- The High Court has based its decision on wholly irrelevant material and has also committed errors of law in checking important documentary evidence.
- The appellant was not 16 years old when the offence was committed. According to the testimony of the father of the appellant he was born on 22.6.57 and was aged 15 years 9 months on 12.3.1973-the date of the occurrence The High Court has based its decision on wholly irrelevant material and has also committed errors of law in appreciating important documentary evidence.
- The father of the appellant while admitting him to the third school in which the date of birth had been changed to September 22, 1956. The explanation of the appellant’s father that the date of birth had been changed to fulfil the requirement of age under the Rajasthan Board of Secondary Regulations to enable the appellant to appear in the Higher Secondary Examination at the appropriate time.
- Another point that was argued before us was as to the application of the Act to Tonk, where the offence was committed. But the counsel says that even though the Act was not applicable to that particular district Section 26 of the Act enjoins a duty on the Court in which the proceeding in respect of the child is pending on the date on which the Act is extended to the area to act in the manner therein prescribed.
Contention of Respondent:
The counsel for Respondent contented that:
- At the time when the offence was committed was the appellant 16 years 5 months and 20 days. It was not proved by him that he was below the age of 16 on 12.3.1973, the date of the occurrence.
- When the appellant was born, his father was posted in a small village (Dausa) where the maternal grandfather of the appellant had lived and perhaps, he was not meticulous enough to report the birth of his children. There is nothing to show the birth of the appellant nor any evidence has been produced on this aspect of the matter.
- The Children Act was not applicable to the appellant as that Act had not been enforced in Tonk district on the date of the occurrence.
- The documents had not been kept or made by a public officer. It relied on an affidavit furnished by the father of the appellant while admitting him to the third school in which the date of birth had been changed to September 22, 1956.
Judgment:
The appeal was therefore allowed by the Supreme Court, while setting aside the judgment of the Sessions Judge, as affirmed by the High Court directing the Additional Sessions Judge, Jaipur, to try the accused and if he gives a finding that the accused is guilty, he shall forward the accused to the Children’s court for receiving sentence in accordance with the provisions of Section 26 of the Act.
The Appeal was Allowed.
Ratio Decidendi:
- The Supreme Court allowed the appeal based on two grounds. The High Court has based its decision on wholly irrelevant material and has also committed errors of law in checking important documentary evidence.
- The High Court said that the Children Act was not applicable to the appellant as that Act had not been enforced in Tonk district on the date of the occurrence. So the appellant was not a child in either case.
Conclusion:
To conclude, Children Act was enacted to protect young children from the consequences of their criminal acts on the footing that their mind at that age could not be said to be mature for imputing mens rea as in the case of an adult. This being the intended reason behind the Act, a clear finding has to be recorded that the relevant date for applicability of the Act is the date on which the offence takes place.
Drafted By: Kimi Kantak, Govind Ramnath Kare College of Law
Edited by: Aashima Kakkar, Associate Editor, Law Insider
Published On: November 2, 2021 at 17:05 IST