Gurwinder Singh @ Guri v. State of Punjab

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL)

¶1This revision has been preferred against the judgment dated

17.08.2018 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Barnala, vide which, judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 24.03.2015 passed by learned Juvenile Justice Board, Barnala (hereinafter 'JJB'), in case stemming from FIR bearing No.50 dated 18.08.2012 registered under Sections 376, 323 IPC at Police Station Bhadaur, has been upheld. The petitioner was sentenced as under: Offence Sentence Section 376 IPC Imprisonment for 03 years at Special Home Section 323 IPC Imprisonment for 06 months at Special Home

¶2The   case   set   up   by   the   prosecution   as   alleged   is   that   on

18.08.2012, the prosecutrix was going to her college when the petitioner and another person approached her and offered to drop her. Since she knew the petitioner beforehand, she sat on his motorcycle. However, he took her towards his rented accommodation. The petitioner took the prosecutrix into his house while the other person locked the door. The prosecutrix raised hue and cry but they caught hold of her shoulders and pushed her towards the wall. They removed her clothes forcibly, beat her and raped her. The father of the prosecutrix arrived on the spot causing the petitioner and his co-accused to flee from the spot.

¶3On assessing all the material available on the record, the petitioner was convicted vide judgment dated 24.03.2015 by the learned JJB. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal which was dismissed by the learned lower Appellate Court vide judgment dated 17.08.2018.

¶4Learned counsel for petitioner contends that he is not assailing the impugned judgment of conviction dated 24.03.2015 on merits and restricts his prayer to modification of the order of quantum of sentence dated 24.03.2015 to that of the sentence already undergone by the petitioner, as he has attained majority and already undergone a total custody period of 2 years 6 months and 29 days, which includes remission.

¶5Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the prayer of petitioner as the learned JJB has passed a well-reasoned judgment based on correct appreciation of evidence available on record and the same has also been upheld by the learned lower Appellate Court. As such, the petitioner does not merit any leniency.

¶6I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance. It appears that the petitioner has attained 18 years of age and has completed 2 years, 6 months and 29 days of custody.

¶7The legislature has consistently made it clear that a juvenile delinquent must only be remanded to a special home, which is evidenced by the fact t$at )ot$ +u/enitie +ustice (Ca e and & otection of C$itid en) .ct- 2000 ($e einafte  5t$e .ct of 20006) as !etiti +u/enitie +ustice (Ca e and & otection of C$itid en) .ct- 2015 ($e einafte  5t$e .ct of 20156) contain s*ecific * o/ision to t$at effect. "ection 15(1)(#) of t$e .ct of 2000  eads as fotitio!s: 15 . Order that may be passed regarding juvenile.-

(1) Where a Board is satisfied on inquiry that a juvenile has committed an offence, then, not withstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law for the time being in force, the Board may, if t thinks so fit, xxx xxx xxx

(g) make an order directing the juvenile to be sent to a special home,

(i) in the case of juvenile, over seventeen years but less than eighteen years of age for a period of not less than two years;

(ii) in case of any other juvenile for the period until he ceases to be a juvenile: Provided that the Board may, if it is satisfied that having regard to the nature of the offence and the circumstances of the case it is expedient so to do, for reasons to be recorded, reduce the period of stay to such period as it thinks fit. A$itie "ection 18(1)(#) of t$e .ct of 2015  eads as fotitio!s:

¶18Orders regarding child found to be in conflict with law.-

(1) Where a Board is satisfied on inquiry that a child irrespective of age has committed a petty offence, or a serious offence, or a child below the age of sixteen years has committed a heinous offence, or a child above the age of sixteen years has committed a heinous offence and the Board has, after preliminary assessment under Section 15, disposed of the matter then, notwithstanding anything contrary contained in any other law for the time being in force, and based on the nature of offence, specific need for supervision or intervention, circumstances as brought out in the social investigation report and past conduct of the child, the Board may, if it so thinks fit,— xxx xxx xxx

(g) direct the child to be sent to a special home, for such period, not exceeding three years, as it thinks fit, for providing reformative services including education, skill development, counselling, behaviour modification therapy, and psychiatric support during the period of stay in the special home"

¶8As such, it is the mandate of law to remand a juvenile offender, tried under the Act of 2000 or the Act of 2015, to a special home only, on establishment of his guilt. It is trite law that if a certain method is prescribed by law, it must be followed to accomplish that specific task, necessarily forbidding the use of other methods. Reliance in this regard can be placed on the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dharani Sugars and Chemicals Ltd. vs. Union of India and others (2019) 5 SCC 480. Therefore, since a special law occupies the field and categorically prescribes for a juvenile delinquent to only be sent to a special home, he cannot be remanded to any other correctional facilities. However, due to the time consumed in adjudicating upon the revision petition filed by him, the petitioner, originally convicted as a juvenile, has now attained majority. Therefore, he cannot be ordered to undergo the sentence imposed upon him in a special home or a regular penitentiary. As such, this Court is of the considered opinion that ends of justice will be met if the sentence imposed upon the petitioner is reduced to that already undergone by him.

¶9A two Judge bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mahesh vs. State of Rajasthan and others 2018(2) R.C.R.(Criminal) 687, dealt with a similar matter wherein the accused was convicted as a juvenile but had attained majority at the time of decision of the appeal. Taking into account the efflux of time and the fact that the accused was now a middle aged man who cannot be sent to a remand home, the following observations were made: "9. The present is a case where the accused appellants though juveniles on the date of commission of the alleged crime are, as on today, middle aged persons. The accused appellant - Mahesh in Criminal Appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.2934 of 2015 had undergone the custody for a period of nearly one year whereas the accused appellant - Arjun in Criminal Appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.5370 of 2015 had suffered custody for about eight (08) months. The maximum sentence, as already noted, is three years. Having regard to the long efflux of time we are of the view that it will not be necessary, in the facts of the present cases, to cause a remand of the matter to the Juvenile Justice Board for a decision on the quantum of sentence for the reason even if such a remand is made and the Juvenile Justice Board comes to a decision that in addition to the period of custody suffered by the accused appellants they need to suffer a further period of custody, such custody can only be in a remand home or a protection home to which places the accused appellants, because of their age as on today, cannot be sent.

¶10On the contrary, having regard to the period of custody suffered; the age of the accused appellants as on date; the efflux of time since the date of occurrence and all other relevant facts and circumstances we are of the view   that while maintaining the conviction of the accused appellants the sentence imposed should be modified to one of the period undergone. We order accordingly." (e2*$asis added) Retiiance in t$is  e#a d can atiso )e *0aced u*on t$e (ud#2ents ende ed )4 t$e ;on6)0e "u* e2e Cou t in Babban Rai and another vs. State of Bihar (2007)13 SCC 88, Pradeep Kumar vs. State of U.P. 1994 AIR SC 104 and t$is Cou t in  Sanjay alias Kala vs. State of Haryana 2011(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 899, Rajesh Kumar vs. State of Haryana 2011(1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 830 and Rohit vs. State of Haryana in CRR-56-2017 decided on

31.10.2017.

¶108n Deo Narain Mandal vs. State of UP (2004) 7 SCC 257- a 1$ ee +ud#e ,enc$ of t$e ;onB)0e "u* e2e Cou t $as o*ined t$at a!a din# of sentence is not a 2e e fo 2atiit4 in c i2inati cases. A$en a 2ini2u2 and 2a<i2u2 te 2 is * esc i)ed )4 t$e statute !it$  e#a d to t$e *e iod of sentence- a disc etiona 4 etie2ent is /ested in t$e Cou t. ,ac=# ound of eac$ case- !$ic$ inctiudes facto s 0i=e # a/it4 of t$e offence- 2anne  in !$ic$ t$e offence   is   co22itted-   a#e   of   t$e   accused-   s$outid   )e   conside ed   !$itie dete 2inin# t$e ?uantu2 of sentence and t$is disc etion is not to )e used arbitrarily or whimsically. After assessing all relevant factors, proper sentence should be awarded bearing in mind the principle of proportionality to ensure the sentence is neither excessively harsh nor does it come across as lenient. Further, a two Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ravada Sasikala vs. State of AP AIR 2017 SC 1166, has reiterated that the imposition of sentence also serves a social purpose as it acts as a deterrent by making the accused realise the damage caused not only to the victim but also to the society at large. The law in this regard is well settled that opportunities of reformation must be granted and such discretion is to be exercised by evaluating all attending circumstances of each case by noticing the nature of the crime, the manner in which the crime was committed and the conduct of the accused to strike a balance between the efficacy of law and the chances of reformation of the accused.

¶11A perusal of the judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial Court indicates no perversity in its findings and the same is based on correct appreciation of evidence available on record. Moreover, learned counsel for petitioner has not assailed the judgment of conviction on merits, rather, he has restricted his prayer only qua quantum of sentence. The FIR in the present case was lodged on 18.08.2012 and petitioner has been suffering the agony of protracted trial for more than last 12 years. As per his custody certificate, the petitioner has undergone actual sentence of 2 years, 6 months and 29 days out of total sentence of 03 years, in the instant case.

¶12In view of the discussion above, this Court is of the opinion that it would be in the interest of justice, if the sentence awarded to petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone by him. Consequently, the present revision petition is disposed of and the judgment dated 17.08.2018 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Barnala, affirming the judgment of conviction is upheld, however, the order of sentence dated 24.03.2015 passed by the JJB is modified to the extent that the sentence of imprisonment for 03 years in Special Home awarded to the petitioner is reduced to the period of sentence already undergone by him. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE

01.10.2024

903 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRR-3145-2018 (O&M) Date of decision: 01.10.2024 Gurwinder Singh @ Guri ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. J.S. Brar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rishabh Singla, AAG, Punjab.