Amarchand Tiwari & Ors vs State Of M.P
- SCC(2011) 15 SCC 105
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
A juvenile who was tried and convicted in a Criminal Court along with adult accused, rather than being tried before the Juvenile Board as required by law, has her conviction vitiated by that procedural defect, notwithstanding that she has already undergone substantial imprisonment, where many years have elapsed since the prosecution commenced and resort to the normal procedure of remitting the matter to the Juvenile Board is found not to be required in the interests of justice.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1507 of 2008
AMARCHAND TIWARI & ORS. ..... APPELLANTS
VERSUS
STATE OF M.P. ..... RESPONDENT
O R D E R
1. The appellants herein have been convicted under
Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and whereas
appellant No. 1, 2 and 3 had been sentenced to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for one year, appellant No. 4
Vishnu Prasad, the husband, has been sentenced to
undergo three years rigorous imprisonment. It is the
conceded position that Amarchand Tiwari and Gayatri
Devi, A1 and A3, have already undergone the one year's
sentence whereas A4 has undergone two years and eight
months of the sentence. We, accordingly, feel that the
ends of justice would be met if the sentence of Vishnu
Prasad is reduced to that already undergone by him.
Insofar as appellant No. 2 Navratri Tiwari is
concerned, we find that she was about 17 years of age
as on the date of the F.I.R. She was, accordingly, a
Crl.A. No. 1507 of 2008 2
juvenile on that date. Being a juvenile she could not
have been tried in a Criminal Court along with the
other accused. In normal circumstances, we would have
sent this matter back to the Juvenile Board insofar as
she was concerned but in the light of the fact that
many years have lapsed since the prosecution started,
we find that this procedure is not required to be
resorted to in the present case. In view of the above
facts the trial against Navaratri Devi appellant must
be held to be vitiated and her order of conviction is
accordingly, set aside. She is deemed to be acquitted.
2. No further orders are necessary.
3. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.
.........................J [HARJIT SINGH BEDI]
........................J [CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD]
NEW DELHI APRIL 26, 2011.
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free