GAUHATI HIGH COURT ISSUES ORDER FOR SRI SIBA PAUL AND 2 ORS V/S THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR

GUWAHATI, India, Oct. 2 -- Gauhati High Court issued the following order on Sept. 1:

1. Criminal Appeal No.50/2016, Criminal Appeal No.78/2016, Criminal Appeal No.94/2016 and Criminal Appeal No.50/2017 have challenged the conviction of 8 accused persons, vide judgment dated 19.01.2016 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Kamrup(M) at Guwahati in Sessions Case No.437(K)/2011, under Section 302/34 IPC.

2. Two persons had been killed on 24.04.2001, due to which 10 accused persons were arrested. Two accused persons died during trial proceedings and the learned Trial Court convicted the remaining 8 accused persons under Section 302/34 IPC, who are the appellants in the above 4 appeal petitions.

3. Three out of the convicted 8 persons filed Criminal Appeal No.50/2016 and they are Nirmal Paul and Sanju Paul. Criminal Appeal No.78/2016 was filed by Harekrishna Paul. Criminal Appeal No.94/2016 was filed by Siba Paul @ Sibu Paul, Pratap Paul and Sri Parimal Paul and Criminal Appeal No.50/2017 was filed by Sri Bipul Paul.

4. On a plea of juvenility having been taken by Harekrishna Paul, Sanju Paul and Parimal Paul, this Court vide order dated 28.09.2023, directed an inquiry was to be made by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Kamrup(M) at Guwahati, with regard to age of Harekrishna Paul, Sanju Paul and Parimal Paul.

5. Pursuant to the order dated 28.09.2023 passed by this Court, the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Kamrup(M) at Guwahati has submitted an inquiry report dated 16.11.2023, regarding the age determination test carried out on the above three persons in terms of Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as the "J.J. Act, 2015"). The Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Kamrup(M), Guwahati ensured that an ossification test and x-ray was done on the three appellants, as there was apparently no date of birth certificate issued by a school or municipal authorities, to determine their age.

6. The age determination test done on the above three persons, by way of an ossification test, brought out the following results : Harekrishna Paul was found to be approximately 12 years 6 months 9 days on the date of occurrence of the crime i.e. 24.04.2001. On the other hand, Sanju Paul was found to be approximately 17 years 6 months 9 days, while Parimal Paul was found to be approximately 12 years 6 months 9 days on the date of the incident.

7. Though the learned Additional Public Prosecutor stated that the age determination ossification test should not be considered, as a prayer of the same had been made after many years, the Supreme Court in the case of Vinod Katara vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in (2023) 15 SCC 210, has held that the plea of juvenility could be raised in any Court, at any stage, even after disposal of a Special Leave Petition under Article 136 of the Constitution. As the age determination of the three appellants had been made during the pendency of the present appeal and in pursuance to the orders of this Court, it would not be proper for this Court to ignore the results of the ossification test. Though the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has stated that the ossification test which had been done after 35 years of the incident, should not be considered, we are bound by the decision of the Supreme Court in various judgments including Vinod Katara (supra). As such, we do not intend to turn a Nelson's eye to the test report made in terms of Section 94 of the J.J. Act, 2015, which had in turn been made on the basis of an order passed by this Court.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=7yg5D%2FmJmLJFbv9l4Wl3vbV2O2UaZv3Gyvuwsy%2FuqwL2qwIf2lkf8WcgXMsVgUEM&caseno=Crl.A./94/2016&cCode=1&cino=GAHC010202452016&state_code=6&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.