Patna High Court Acquits Juvenile, Labels Conviction A Travesty Of Justice | Cites Highly Doubtful Evidence And Violation Of The Best Interest Of The Child Principle
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Patna, Single Bench of Justice Jitendra Kumar has set aside the conviction and sentence imposed under the Arms Act, directing the acquittal of the petitioner. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the seizure and recovery of arms and ammunition beyond reasonable doubt. The Court further directed circulation of the judgment among Presiding Officers of Juvenile Justice Boards and Children Courts of Bihar and transmission of records to the concerned lower courts.
The present criminal revision petition was filed against the judgment dated 13.09.2018 passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Bettiah, West Champaran in Criminal Appeal No. 37 of 2013, which upheld the order of the Juvenile Justice Board, West Champaran, Bettiah in G.R. Case No. 2277 of 2012. The Juvenile Justice Board had found the petitioner guilty under Sections 25(1-B)a and 26/35 of the Arms Act, ordering him to be sent to the Special Home, Patna for three years, subject to adjustment of the period of detention already undergone.
The case originated from a written report filed by Police Sub-Inspector Badrinath Sharma, based on secret information that three individuals were traveling on a red motorcycle from Tikulia Chowk towards the station to commit a crime. Acting on this information, the police intercepted the accused near the old High School at Chanpatia. Upon sighting the police, one individual fled, abandoning his bag, while the petitioner and two other co-accused were apprehended. The police allegedly recovered a 9 mm pistol made in Italy and a country-made pistol loaded with cartridges of 315 bore from the petitioner and other co-accused.
The police prepared seizure lists, and a charge sheet was filed against the accused under Sections 25(1-B)a and 26/35 of the Arms Act. The petitioner was declared a juvenile based on school certificates, which indicated his date of birth as 15.09.1995, making him 16 years, 8 months, and 20 days old on the date of occurrence.
During the inquiry before the Juvenile Justice Board, nine prosecution witnesses were examined, including the informant and investigating officer. Several documents, including seizure lists, forensic reports, and sanction orders, were exhibited. Material evidence, including country-made pistols and cartridges, was presented. The petitioner did not examine any defense witnesses.
The petitioner filed a criminal appeal, which was dismissed, affirming the conviction and sentence. Subsequently, the petitioner preferred the present criminal revision petition before the High Court.
The Court observed that the conviction was primarily based on the alleged seizure of arms and ammunition. However, the evidence regarding the seizure was found to be highly doubtful. The Court recorded: "Out of two seizure witnesses, only one of them was examined as P.W.-7 but even he has not supported the seizure of the arms and ammunition in his presence." The witness stated that he was called to the police station for a character certificate and was made to sign a plain paper.
The Court further observed, "There is also no evidence on record to show that the alleged seized arms and ammunition from the possession of the petitioner was sealed on the spot and deposited in Malkhana with identification marks and the same were sent for ballistic test." The prosecution failed to establish who sealed the arms, where they were sealed, and whether the arms were deposited with proper identification.
Referring to Section 15 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, the Court noted that the order of sentence was not in consonance with the Act's objectives and provisions. It was recorded, "The very seizure and recovery of the arms and ammunition from the petitioner could not be proved beyond reasonable doubts. It would be travesty of justice to find the petitioner guilty on such evidence against him."
The Court cited the preamble and relevant provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act and Rules, stating rehabilitation over punishment. It observed, "The Board/Court acted against the interest of the petitioner by not providing him appropriate opportunity to continue his studies." The Social Investigation Report stated that the petitioner was a bright student who had secured 75 percent marks in matriculation and aspired to pursue B.Tech.
The Court referred to Supreme Court judgments, including Salil Bali v. Union of India and Subramanian Swamy v. Raju, observing that the Juvenile Justice System focuses on rehabilitation rather than retribution.
The Court allowed the criminal revision petition, setting aside the conviction and sentence imposed by the Juvenile Justice Board and the Appellate Court. It acquitted the petitioner of all charges.
The Court directed that a copy of the judgment be circulated among the Presiding Officers of the Juvenile Justice Boards and Children Courts in Bihar. Additionally, the judgment was to be sent to the Bihar Judicial Academy for discussion in training programs for the Presiding Officers of Juvenile Justice Boards and Children Courts. The Court further directed the transmission of lower court records to the concerned courts.
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Bimlesh Kumar Pandey, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Jai Narain Thakur, APP
Case Title: Diwakar Singh @ Mithu Singh v. The State of Bihar
Case Number: Criminal Revision No. 359 of 2019
Bench: Justice: Jitendra Kumar
[Read/Download order]
