DEVILAL v. State of Madhya Pradesh

 

The case summary is written by Manshi Sinha a 2^nd year BBA LLB student at ICFAI UNIVERSITY DEHRADHUN .

 

 

DEVILAL v. State of Madhya Pradesh

Criminal Appeal No. 989 of 2007

 

Bench: J. UU Lalit. J. Indira Banerjee, J. KM Joseph

 

Date of Decision: 25^th February 2021

Appellant: Devilal

Respondents: State of Madhya Pradesh

 

Facts:

Devilal and his two sons were convicted of murdering Ganeshram in 1988. Amrat Ram, the second son of Devilal, was a juvenile at the time of committing the crime. The age for a person to be juvenile according to Juvenile Justice Act 1986 used to be 16 in 1998, when the crime was committed.

Issue raised:

 

The Juvenile Justice Act of 1986 was in effect when the offence was committed in 1998, and it stated that anyone under the age of 16 was deemed a juvenile. Amrat Ram, Devilal’s second son, was 16 years, 11 months, and 26 days old at the time the crime was committed. As a result, he was plainly not a minor under the Juvenile Justice Act of 1986.

 

 

We shall now discuss the arguments and reasoning of the court:

pertaining to this case and the aforementioned case laws for the purpose of Devilal vs State of Madhya Pradesh.

The prosecution showed that Devilal and his two sons were guilty under Sections 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code by the decision and order of the trial court (05.01.1999).

It’s also worth noting that, despite the alleged caste-based altercation, the court did not find them guilty of crimes punishable under the SC/ST Act. A separate judgement found the appellants guilty of violating Sections 342 and 34 of the IPC and sentenced them to life in prison and a punishment of Rs. 5000/- each.The appellants were convicted under Section 342 and 34 of IPC by a separate order and were sentenced to lifetime imprisonment. The appellants filed a Criminal Appeal 700 of 1999 in the High Court. They contended that it was highly uncertain for Ganeshram, deceased, to have made any statement before the police prior to his death.

The High Court thus upheld Devilal’s conviction and sentence, as well as that of his sons Gokul and Amrat Ram, and dismissed the accused’s Criminal Appeal No. 700 of 1999. This decision was handed out on September 14, 2006.

Furthermore, it was claimed that Amrat Ram, Devilal’s second son, was a minor at the time the crime was committed. The statement of the accused’s juvenility could be presented for the first time before the Court in light of the Hari Ram vs. State of Rajasthan ruling. The Sessions Judge, Neemach, was directed by this Court to conduct an inquiry into this issue of juvenility by order dated 3.10.2018, and it was discovered that the accused, Amrat Ram, was 16 years, 11 months and 26 days old in 1998, if the court finds that the juvenile has committed an offence, it shall record such finding and, rather than passing any sentence in respect of the juvenile, forward the juvenile to the Board, which shall deal with the juvenile in accordance with the Juvenile Justice Act 2020..Amrat must be sent to the jurisdictional Juvenile Justice Board, which will determine the proper amount of fine to levy against him.

 

Judgement:

 

‘The Appeal is disposed of in the afore-mentioned terms,’ Justice UmeshLalit, Justice Indira Banerjee, and Justice K.M Joseph announced on February 25, 2021, and directed Devilal and Gokul, who had been released on bail, to surrender before the appropriate Police Station within two weeks.

 

This conclusion was reached after consulting a number of court decisions, including Hari Ram vs State of Rajasthan.

 

Case Laws in order of mention:

 

Hari Ram vs. State of Rajasthan [(1998) S.C. 236

 

Pratap Singh v. State of Jharkhand [(2005) 6 SCC (J) 1]

 

· Dharambir v. State (NCT of Delhi) [(2010). 5 SCC 344]

 

· Kalu v. State of Haryana[(2012) 8 SCC 34]

 

· Jitendra Singh v. State of U.P [(2013) 11 SCC 193