news details |
|
|
| HC directive to trial court in murder case | | The trial court had awarded death sentence to the accused | | Early Times Report
Jammu, Nov 9: In the murder and rape of a minor in which the trial court had awarded death penalty to Mohammad Rashid, alias Abdul Rashid, son of Gulam Mohammad of Magam, Anantnag, a high court division bench of Justice Hasnain Massodi and Justice Janak Raj Kotwal has sent the case back to the trial court with the direction that the question of juvenility of the appellant at the time of alleged commission of offence is required to be enquired into and decided afresh.
"We therefore, direct the trial court, that is the court of 3rd additional sessions judge, Jammu, to enquire into and determine age of the appellant as on 28.08.2005, exactly or as nearly as may be, in accordance with the statutory provisions, that is section 8 of the Act of 2013 read with Rules 74 and 75 of the Rules of 2014 as discussed above and send the record of the inquiry, decision in the matter and the record of the case to this court. The trial court judge is requested that inquiry should be concluded expeditiously and not later than a period of two months after record of the case is received in his court and also directed that Registry shall immediately send the record of the case along with a copy of this order to the trial court where both the parties shall cause their appearance," the bench ordered.
According to the police case, Pacca Danga police station received a source information on August 28, 2005 at 10.30 pm that an unidentified body of a girl, aged about 12/13 years, was lying near Kachi Chawni crossing, outside Government Girls High School, Jammu, and which had been taken to Government Medical College Hospital, Jammu, by some passersby. Since the victim had died under suspicious circumstances, police, after completion of investigation, presented challan against the accused under sections 320, 363 and 376 of RPC.
The bench observed that Section 8 of the Act of 2013 read with Rules 74 and 75 of the Rules of 2014 lays down the procedure for dealing with the question of determination of the age of the accused for the purpose of finding out whether he is juvenile or not. Section 8 provides that the court shall take such evidence, other than affidavits, as may be ';necessary';, for determining the age of the accused and shall record a finding whether the accused is juvenile or a child or not stating his age as nearly as may be. Rules 74 and 75 lays down in detail the variety and the manner of taking the ';necessary'; evidence as required under section 8 for determination and declaration of the age of the accused. In the scheme of things Rules 74 and 75 are required to be read in conjunction and in support of section 8 for determination of the question of juvenility in all the cases including a disposed of case in which the question of juvenility has not been decided by the trial court in accordance with law like the one in hand and hold that the court when called upon to determine the question of juvenility under section 8 of the Act of 2013 should follow the procedure provided under section 8 read with Rules 74 and 75 of the Rules of 2014.
We would also reiterate that care must be taken to ensure that any document or documents obtained in the process of inquiry pertains to the accused and to ensure that the prosecution should be given opportunity of filing objections to the claim of juvenility and court should take all such evidence as may be necessary. (JNF) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
STOCK UPDATE |
|
|
 |
| BSE
Sensex |
 |
| NSE
Nifty |
|
|
| |
CRICKET UPDATE |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
