In a criminal appeal filed before the Jharkhand High Court against a judgment of conviction and order of sentence by the Additional Sessions Judge I (Special Judge, POCSO Court), Dhanbad, whereby the appellant, a child in conflict with law, was held guilty under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and was awarded rigorous imprisonment for 14 years along with a fine of Rs. 30,000/- in view of Section 21 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, a Division Bench of Justice Rongon Mukhopadhyay and Justice Pradeep Kumar Srivastava modified the impugned judgment and reduced the appellant’s sentence to period already undergone.
The deceased victim was murdered on 30/31-10-2017 by the appellant, who was working as a servant in his shop. The Informant, son of the deceased, received information about the occurrence, went to the shop with his cousin, and found his father lying dead inside the shop. Local shopkeepers apprehended the appellant fleeing from the shop and handed him over to the police. A First Information Report was registered under Section 302 of the IPC and the Principal Magistrate as well as the members of the Juvenile Justice Board, Dhanbad, conducted a preliminary enquiry to conclude that the alleged offence was heinous and the age of the child in conflict with law was above 16 years but less than 18 years. It was also found that there was a need for the trial of the child as an adult. Hence, the record was sent to the Children Court.
Seven witnesses were examined by the prosecution, while no oral or documentary evidence was adduced by the defence. In his statement, the appellant admitted that he was working as a servant in the shop but pleaded innocence. The trial court passed the impugned order holding the appellant guilty under Section 302, and sentenced him as mentioned above.
The appellant argued that there were no eye-witnesses, the case hinged entirely on circumstantial evidence, and alternatively prayed for a reduction of sentence as the appellant had undergone more than 08 years of custody and completed skill and reformative training.
The Court found that the appellant was apprehended while escaping, and had concrete incriminating materials seized from his possession, including the stolen mobile phone of the deceased and blood-stained clothes, showing his involvement in the alleged murder. Further, the Court opined that the trial court had passed a well considered judgment and found no illegality in the conviction or error of law vitiating the conclusion of the trial court.
However, regarding the quantum of sentence, the Court noted that it was the appellant’s first offence, he was a child in conflict with law aged between 16-18 years at the time of occurrence, he had undergone more than half of the sentence, and that he had received skill training and reformative education with no adverse conduct reported. The Court found that the appellant had already undergone more than half of the sentence awarded to him and that his bright future prospects had almost been ruined.
Considering the reformative theory of punishment, the Court dismissed the appeal on merits but modified the sentence, reducing it to the period of imprisonment already undergone instead of 14 years. Thus, the appellant was directed to be released forthwith if not involved in any other case.
