1 APPA 294 OF 2011 vks IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 294 OF 2011 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.555 OF 1993 Mohan Kakasaheb Jadhav age: 39 years, Occn. Agriculture residing at : Nimbalak Naka, Tal. Phaltan, District: Satara .. Applicant Original accused No.2 -versus The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent. Mr. Rahul Kate, for the Applicant. Mrs. G. P. Mulekar, APP for the Respondent State. CORAM: R.C. CHAVAN, J. DATED: 29th March, 2011 Oral Judgment This is an application by Appellant NO.2 in Criminal Appeal No.555 of 1993. He has been convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge for the offences punishable under Section 304, 324 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentence to suffer R. I. for one year and six months with fine of Rs.2,000/- and Rs.500/-, respectively on each of the two counts. This conviction was recorded on the charge of causing death of Namdeo and causing injuries to Sitabai, Janabai, Savita and Vanchala on 15th October, 1989. The applicant states that on that day, he was 16 years and four months of 2 APPA 294 OF 2011 age, as per School Leaving Certificate which is filed on record. Learned APP upon instructions from the Investigating Officer, states that the appellant’s date of birth is 7th June, 1973. Though the appellant was thus, above 16 years of age on the date of commission of offence and though according to law then applicable, he was not juvenile, in view of the amended provisions of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, and judgments of the Supreme Court on which learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance namely i) Vikram Singh -vs- State of Haryana (2209) 13 Supreme Court Cases 645, ii) Dharambir -vs- State (2010) 2 SCC (Cri) 1274, iii) Daya Nand -vs- State of Haryana (2011) 2 Supreme Court Cases, 224, applicant is entitled to the benefit of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. His appeal against conviction is still pending and since he had not completed 18 years of age at the time of commission of offence, he had to be tried as ‘juvenile offender and therefore, could not have been visited with sentence of detention for more than three years in a juvenile home. The applicant has been in custody for the period of about four months as under trial prisoner and after his conviction. Since the applicant was 16 years at the time of commission of offence in 1989 i.e. more than 21 years ago. He is about 37 years now and therefore, cannot obviously be sent to the home where juveniles are kept. In view of this no 3 APPA 294 OF 2011 further imprisonment of the applicant would be warranted, irrespective of how the appeal gets decided. In view of this, application is allowed and the appeal so far as present applicant i.e. appellant No.2 in the said appeal is concerned, is disposed of in view of provisions of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, warranting no further action. (R. C. CHAVAN, J.)