IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND OCTOBER 2008 / 30TH ASWINA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1349 of 2007() ------------------------------ C.C.NO.4/2003 OF JUVENILE COURT, MANJERI CRA.446/2005 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)III, MANJERI .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): (APPELLANT/1ST ACCUSED) --------------------------------------------------------- JUVENILE OFFENDER SAKKEER, S/O ALAVI, KOOLIYODAN HOUSE, PILAKKAL, PAYYANAD, ERNAD TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT AND STATE ------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MANJERI POLICE STATION, MANJERI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN-682031. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.M.KAMAPPU THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. =========================== Crl.R.P. NO.1349 OF 2007 =========================== Dated this the 22nd day of October,2008 ORDER Petitioner is a juvenile in conflict with law and was tried by Juvenile Court, Manjeri in C.C.4/2003 for the offence under sections 377 and 325 of Indian Penal Code. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Presiding Officer of the Juvenile Court, on the evidence of Pws. 1 to 16 and Exts.P1 to P9 found the petitioner guilty of the offence under sections 377 and 325 of Indian Penal Code. He was directed to be kept in Special Home for Boys, Poojappura, Thiruvananthapuram as provided under section 15(g) of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act till he ceases to be a juvenile. Petitioner challenged the order before the Sessions Court, Manjeri in Crl.A.446/2005. Learned Sessions Judge on reappreciation of evidence also found that petitioner is guilty of the offences under sections 377 and 325 of IPC. CRRP 1349/2007 2 Hence the order passed against the juvenile in conflict with law and the direction to send him to the Special Home for Boys till he ceases to be a juvenile under section 15(g) of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children)Act was confirmed. The order is challenged in this revision petition filed under sections 397 read with section 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 3. Evidence of PW13 the then Headmistress of the Boys High School, Manjeri with Ext.P7 certificate issued by PW13 establish that petitioner was born on 4.1.1990. Under sub section (k) of Section 2 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 a “juvenile” is defined as a person who has not completed eighteenth year of age; and under sub section (l) of Section 2 “juvenile in conflict with law” means a juvenile who is alleged to have committed an offence and has not completed eighteenth year of CRRP 1349/2007 3 age as on the date of commission of such offence. The incident in this case was on 30.12.2002. Therefore on the date of commission of the offence petitioner was aged less than 13 years. Even when the Juvenile Court passed the order on 24.11.2005, petitioner was a juvenile in conflict with law as provided under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. Section 15 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act provides for an order that may be passed regarding a juvenile under sub section (1). Where a Board is satisfied on inquiry that a juvenile has committed an offence, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law for the time being in force, an order can be passed only as provided under clause (a) to (g). Clause (g) provides for an order directing juvenile to be sent to a special home for a period of three years. The Juvenile Court has directed detention of the petitioner till he ceases to be a juvenile. As the petitioner has already ceased to be a juvenile, the CRRP 1349/2007 4 period is already over. In such circumstance, there is no necessity to interfere with that order. 4. Though learned counsel appearing for petitioner argued that the finding of Juvenile Court and learned Sessions Judge on commission of the offence under section 377 and 326 of Indian Penal Code is not sustainable, on appreciating the evidence, it cannot be said that the view taken by the courts below is not a possible or reasonable view. Therefore no interference is warranted on that finding. The revision is therefore dismissed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE tpl/- M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. --------------------- W.P.(C).NO. /06 --------------------- JUDGMENT SEPTEMBER,2006