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
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