* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on 08.07.2011
+ CRL. M. A. 3691/2011 & CRL.A. 73/2011
FIROZ ... Appellant
- versus -
STATE ... Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Appellant : Mr Hasan Anzar with Mr Osama Suhail For the Respondent : Ms Richa Kapur CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE VEENA BIRBAL
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to
see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in Digest?
BADAR DURREZ AHMED (ORAL)
1. By way of this application, the appellant Firoz claims that he was a
juvenile in conflict with law as defined in Section 2(l) of the Juvenile
Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to
as ‘the said Act’) on the date of the incident, that is, on 13.01.2003.
CRL. M. .A 3691/2011 & CRL.A. No. 73/2011 Page 1 of 5
2. We find that even in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.
P.C, he had given his age as about 24 years. The said statement was
recorded on 11.05.2010. This would indicate that he was born sometime
in the year 1986. Along with this application, a copy of the transfer
certificate of Rajkiya Madhyamik Vidhyalaya, Bagridi, Bagro, Kodarma,
Jharkhand was filed which indicated his date of birth recorded at the time
of his admission to be 05.10.1986. By virtue of our order dated
28.04.2011, we had directed the respondent/ State to have the school
certificate verified. The status report regarding the verification of the said
school certificate has been submitted by the Station House Officer, Police
Station Vasant Vihar and the same is dated 06.07.2011. The same is
taken on record. As per the said report, the date of birth of Mohd. Firoz,
the appellant herein, was found to be 05.10.1986. Information was
collected from the school, namely, Rajkiya Madhyamik Vidhyalaya,
Bagridi, Bagro, Kodarma, Jharkhand which was attended by the appellant
and a certified copy of the transfer certificate in respect of the appellant
Mohd. Firoz was obtained. The same has been filed along with the status
report and is marked as Annexure ‘D-1’. There is also a certificate issued
by the Principal of the said school which is marked as Annexure ‘D’,
CRL. M. .A 3691/2011 & CRL.A. No. 73/2011 Page 2 of 5
which also indicates that the date of birth of the appellant, as recorded in
the school, was 05.10.1986. From the transfer certificate (Annexure D-1)
to the said status report, it is apparent that the appellant had taken
admission in the said school on 15.09.1996 and had left the said school on
31.12.1999. At that point of time, the appellant was a student of class V.
Annexure ‘D-2’ to the status report is a certified copy of the extract of the
admission register at the time the appellant was granted admission to the
said school and the same also indicates his date of birth to be 05.10.1986
and that he had been admitted to class III of the said school on 15.09.1996.
3. The enquiry conducted by the respondents also indicates that this is
the only school which was attended by the appellant and this has been
confirmed by the statement of the appellant’s father Mohd. Halim Mian
which was recorded in the presence of Mehboob Ansari, who was a
member of the Panchayat. The said document is Annexure ‘E’ to the said
report.
4. In view of the foregoing and in accordance with the procedure
prescribed in Rule 12 (3) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of
Children) Rules, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the said Rules’) and in
CRL. M. .A 3691/2011 & CRL.A. No. 73/2011 Page 3 of 5
particular Rule 12 (3)(a)(ii), the date of birth of the appellant Mohd. Firoz
is determined to be 05.10.1986, as indicated by the date of birth certificate
from the school first attended, namely, Rajkiya Madhyamik Vidhyalaya,
Bagridi, Bagro, Kodarma, Jharkhand.
5. If that be the case, then Mohd. Firoz was sixteen years, three months
and eight days old on the date of the occurrence, that is, 13.01.2003. This
would bring him within the definition of a juvenile in conflict with law in
terms of the said Act. Consequently, he could not have been detained
beyond a period of three years under the provisions of the said Act by
virtue of Sections 15 and 16 thereof. We find from the nominal roll dated
10.02.2011 that as on that date, the appellant had already undergone
judicial custody for a period of eight years and eighteen days. He was,
however, granted interim suspension of sentence on 24.05.2011 and,
therefore, it would mean that he has already undergone a period of over
eight years and two months in judicial custody. The learned counsel for
the appellant submits, on instructions from the appellant, who is also
present in Court that he does not wish to challenge the conviction and
would be satisfied if the benefit of the said Act is given to the appellant.
CRL. M. .A 3691/2011 & CRL.A. No. 73/2011 Page 4 of 5
Consequently, the appeal, insofar as the conviction is concerned, is
dismissed but the order on sentence dated 07.07.2010 is set aside. The
appellant has been in custody for more than three years, which is the
maximum period of detention provided even under the said Act.
Therefore, the appellant is entitled to be set at liberty straightaway. The
appellant has been granted interim suspension of sentence by virtue of our
order dated 24.05.2011 and he has been released on bail for a period of
eight weeks on 10.06.2011 on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of
` 10,000/- and providing one surety. In view of the fact that he is being
set at liberty by virtue of this order, the sentence against him is set aside
and the bail bonds stand cancelled and the surety stands discharged. This
application as well as the appeal stand disposed of accordingly.
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J
VEENA BIRBAL, J
JULY 08, 2011
SR
CRL. M. .A 3691/2011 & CRL.A. No. 73/2011 Page 5 of 5