Gurdeep Singh vs State Of Uttaranchal

1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 642 OF 2005

GURDEEP SINGH ...... APPELLANT

VERSUS

STATE OF UTTARANCHAL ...... RESPONDENT

O R D E R

1. This appeal by way of special leave arises out

of the following facts:

1.1 Banta Singh, deceased the grand father of the

appellant herein, was the owner of about 14 acres of

land which was being cultivated by his three sons

including Pyara Singh, accused. He also had two tube

wells one of which had been entered in the revenue

record as belonging to Pyara Singh and Banta Singh felt

that this change had been made as a result of a fraud

played by Pyara Singh. This had annoyed him and he

executed a Will of his entire property in the names of

his two other sons Kartar Singh and Mukhtyar Singh.

This annoyed Pyara Singh yet further.

1.2 On the 26th of September, 1982, Mukhtyar Singh,

aforesaid had gone to Jaspur for his personal work

Crl.A. No. 642 of 2005 2

whereas the complainant went into the jungle to relieve

himself leaving the deceased in the house. At about

7:00a.m. the deceased went to the tube well of Pyara

Singh and asked him to provide water from his tube well

in order to irrigate the paddy crop. Pyara Singh

refused to do so on which the deceased threatened that

the sale deed of his land would be immediately executed

in favour of Kartar Singh and Mukhtyar Singh, the other

two sons. This infuriated Pyara Singh further on which

he and the appellant herein assaulted the deceased with

a ballam and pharsi. The deceased fell on the ground,

whereafter Chhinnder Kaur wife of Pyara Singh, caused

him several injuries which resulted in his immediate

death. The incident was witnessed by Gurdev Kaur,

wife of the deceased, Charan Kaur her daughter-in-law

and Rani the niece of the complainant and several other

persons as well. On hearing the alarm Mukhtyar Singh

also arrived at the spot. The assailants, however, ran

away towards the jungle. Mukhtyar Singh then made his

way to the police station and lodged a First

Information Report for an offence under Section 302/34

of the Indian Penal Code.

1.3 The trial court on a consideration of the

evidence convicted Gurdeep Singh, Pyara Singh and

Chhinder Kaur for the aforesaid offence on the

Crl.A. No. 642 of 2005 3

statements made by Gurdev Kaur and the others. An

appeal was thereafter taken to the High Court and

during its pendency, Chhinder Kaur passed away. The

appeal of Gurdeep Singh and Pyara Singh was dismissed

by the High Court. It is the conceded position that

the Special Leave Petition filed by Pyara Singh has

been dismissed by this Court whereas notice had been

issued in the case of the appellant, in the light of

the fact that he claimed to be 11 to 13 years of age as

on the date of the incident and being a juvenile could

not have been tried before a Criminal Court.

2. Before us today, Mr. Nagendra Rai, learned

Senior Counsel has attempted to argue the matter on

the merits of the case as well. We find absolutely no

reason to interfere in the orders of the trial court

and the High Court insofar as the involvement of the

appellant is concerned. In the light of the fact,

however, that there seems to be uncertainity as to his

age on the date of the incident, we feel that the

matter requires a further inquiry on this limited

aspect. We, accordingly, while dismissing the appeal

on merits, remit the case to the trial court which

shall make an inquiry under Section 20 of the Juvenile

Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2000, read

Crl.A. No. 642 of 2005 4

with Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection

of Children) Rules, 2007, and in case it is found that

the appellant was not a juvenile on the date of the

incident of the offence, no further orders will be

necessary. However, in case it is found that he was a

juvenile, proceedings under the Act shall be taken and

the sentence awarded to him will be set aside and his

case will be forwarded to the Board set up under the

Act. We also direct that as the appellant is on bail

he shall continue to remain on bail during the inquiry.

...... ..................J [HARJIT SINGH BEDI]

........................J [CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD] NEW DELHI JANUARY 25, 2011.

Crl.A. No. 642 of 2005

5

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 642 OF 2005

GURDEEP SINGH ...... APPELLANT

VERSUS

STATE OF UTTARANCHAL ...... RESPONDENT

O R D E R

1. This appeal by way of special leave arises out

of the following facts:

1.1 Banta Singh, deceased the grand father of the

appellant herein, was the owner of about 14 acres of

land which was being cultivated by his three sons

including Pyara Singh, accused. He also had two tube

wells one of which had been entered in the revenue

record as belonging to Pyara Singh and Banta Singh felt

that this change had been made as a result of a fraud

played by Pyara Singh. This had annoyed him and he

executed a Will of his entire property in the names of

his two other sons Kartar Singh and Mukhtyar Singh.

This annoyed Pyara Singh yet further.

1.2 On the 26th of September, 1982, Mukhtyar Singh,

aforesaid had gone to Jaspur for personal work whereas

Crl.A. No. 642 of 2005 6

the complainant went into the jungle to relieve himself

leaving the deceased in the house. At about 7:00a.m.

the deceased went to the tube well of Pyara Singh and

asked him to provide water from his tube well in order

to irrigate the paddy crop. Pyara Singh refused to do

so on which the deceased threatened that the sale deed

of his land would be immediately executed in favour of

Kartar Singh and Mukhtyar Singh, the other two sons.

This infuriated Pyara Singh further on which he and the

appellant herein assaulted the deceased with a ballam

and pharsi. The deceased fell on the ground,

whereafter Chhinnder Kaur wife of Pyara Singh, caused

him several injuries which resulted in his immediate

death. The incident was witnessed by Gurdev Kaur,

wife of the deceased, Charan Kaur her daughter-in-law

and Rani the niece of the complainant and several other

persons as well. On hearing the alarm Mukhtyar Singh

also arrived at the spot. The assailants, however, ran

away towards the jungle. Mukhtyar Singh then made his

way to the police station and lodged a First

Information Report for an offence under Section 302/34

of the Indian Penal Code.

1.3 The trial court on a consideration of the

evidence convicted Gurdeep Singh, Pyara Singh and

Chhinder Kaur for the aforesaid offence on the

Crl.A. No. 642 of 2005 7

statements made by Gurdev Kaur and the others. An

appeal was thereafter taken to the High Court and

during its pendency, Chhinder Kaur passed away. The

appeal of Gurdeep Singh and Pyara Singh was dismissed

by the High Court. It is the conceded position that

the Special Leave Petition filed by Pyara Singh has

been dismissed by this Court whereas notice had been

issued in the case of the appellant, in the light of

the fact that he claimed to be 11 to 13 years of age as

on the date of the incident and being a juvenile could

not have been tried before a Criminal Court.

2. Before us today, Mr. Nagendra Rai, learned

Senior Counsel has attempted to argue the matter on

the merits of the case as well. We find absolutely no

reason to interfere in the orders of the trial court

and the High Court insofar as the involvement of the

appellant is concerned. In the light of the fact,

however, that there seems to be uncertainity as to his

age on the date of the incident, we feel that the

matter requires a further inquiry on this limited

aspect. We, accordingly, while dismissing the appeal

on merits, remit the case to the trial court which

shall make an inquiry under Section 20 of the Juvenile

Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2000, read

Crl.A. No. 642 of 2005 8

with Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection

of Children) Rules, 2007, and in case it is found that

the appellant was not a juvenile on the date of the

incident of the offence, no further orders will be

necessary. However, in case it is found that he was a

juvenile, proceedings under the Act shall be taken and

the sentence awarded to him will be set aside and his

case will be forwarded to the Board set up under the

Act. We also direct that as the appellant is on bail

he shall continue to remain on bail during the inquiry.

...... ..................J [HARJIT SINGH BEDI]

........................J [CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD] NEW DELHI JANUARY 25, 2011.