Crl.A. No. 642 of 2005                                                                                                                                            1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 642 OF 2005

GURDEEP SINGH ...... APPELLANT

VERSUS

STATE OF UTTARANCHAL ...... RESPONDENT

O R D E R

1.     This appeal by way of special leave arises out  

of the following facts:

1.1 Banta Singh, deceased the grand father of the  

appellant herein, was the owner of about 14 acres of  

land  which  was  being  cultivated  by  his  three  sons  

including Pyara Singh, accused.  He also had two tube  

wells one of which had been entered in the revenue  

record as belonging to Pyara Singh and Banta Singh felt  

that  this change had been made as a result of a fraud  

played by Pyara Singh.  This had annoyed him and he  

executed a Will of his entire property in the names of  

his two other sons Kartar Singh and Mukhtyar Singh.  

This annoyed Pyara Singh yet further.   

1.2 On the 26th of September, 1982, Mukhtyar Singh,  

aforesaid  had  gone  to  Jaspur  for  his  personal  work

Crl.A. No. 642 of 2005                                                                                                                                            2

whereas the complainant went into the jungle to relieve  

himself leaving the deceased in the house.  At about  

7:00a.m. the deceased went to the tube well of Pyara  

Singh and asked him to provide water from his tube well  

in  order  to  irrigate  the  paddy  crop.   Pyara  Singh  

refused to do so on which the deceased threatened that  

the sale deed of his land would be immediately executed  

in favour of Kartar Singh and Mukhtyar Singh, the other  

two sons. This infuriated Pyara Singh further on which  

he and the appellant herein assaulted the deceased with  

a ballam and pharsi.  The deceased fell on the ground,  

whereafter Chhinnder Kaur wife of Pyara Singh, caused  

him several injuries which resulted in his immediate  

death.  The incident was witnessed by Gurdev  Kaur,  

wife of the deceased, Charan Kaur her daughter-in-law  

and Rani the niece of the complainant and several other  

persons as well.  On hearing the alarm Mukhtyar Singh  

also arrived at the spot.  The assailants, however, ran  

away towards the jungle.  Mukhtyar Singh then made his  

way  to  the  police  station  and  lodged  a  First  

Information Report for an offence under Section 302/34  

of the Indian Penal Code.   

1.3 The  trial  court  on  a  consideration  of  the  

evidence  convicted  Gurdeep  Singh,  Pyara  Singh  and  

Chhinder  Kaur  for  the  aforesaid  offence  on  the

Crl.A. No. 642 of 2005                                                                                                                                            3

statements made by Gurdev Kaur and the others.  An  

appeal  was  thereafter  taken  to  the  High  Court  and  

during its pendency, Chhinder Kaur passed away.  The  

appeal of Gurdeep Singh and Pyara Singh was dismissed  

by the High Court.  It is the conceded position that  

the Special Leave Petition filed by Pyara Singh has  

been dismissed by this Court whereas notice had been  

issued in the case of the appellant, in the light of  

the fact that he claimed to be 11 to 13 years of age as  

on the date of the incident and being a juvenile could  

not have been tried before a Criminal Court.  

2. Before  us  today,  Mr.  Nagendra  Rai,  learned  

Senior Counsel has attempted to  argue the matter on  

the  merits of the case as well.  We find absolutely no  

reason to interfere in the orders of the trial court  

and the High Court insofar as the involvement of the  

appellant is concerned.  In the light of the fact,  

however, that there seems to be uncertainity as to his  

age on the date of the incident, we  feel that the  

matter  requires  a  further  inquiry  on  this  limited  

aspect.  We, accordingly, while dismissing the appeal  

on merits, remit the case to the trial court which  

shall make an inquiry under Section 20  of the Juvenile  

Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2000, read

Crl.A. No. 642 of 2005                                                                                                                                            4

with Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection  

of Children) Rules, 2007, and in case it is found that  

the appellant was not a juvenile on the date of the  

incident  of  the  offence,  no  further  orders  will  be  

necessary.  However, in case it is found that he was a  

juvenile, proceedings under the Act shall be taken and  

the sentence awarded to him will be set aside and his  

case will be forwarded to the Board set up under the  

Act.  We also direct that as the appellant is on bail  

he shall continue to remain on bail during the inquiry.  

...... ..................J [HARJIT SINGH BEDI]

........................J [CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD]

NEW DELHI JANUARY 25, 2011.

Crl.A. No. 642 of 2005                                                                                                                                            5

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 642 OF 2005

GURDEEP SINGH ...... APPELLANT

VERSUS

STATE OF UTTARANCHAL ...... RESPONDENT

O R D E R

1.     This appeal by way of special leave arises out  

of the following facts:

1.1 Banta Singh, deceased the grand father of the  

appellant herein, was the owner of about 14 acres of  

land  which  was  being  cultivated  by  his  three  sons  

including Pyara Singh, accused.  He also had two tube  

wells one of which had been entered in the revenue  

record as belonging to Pyara Singh and Banta Singh felt  

that  this change had been made as a result of a fraud  

played by Pyara Singh.  This had annoyed him and he  

executed a Will of his entire property in the names of  

his two other sons Kartar Singh and Mukhtyar Singh.  

This annoyed Pyara Singh yet further.   

1.2 On the 26th of September, 1982, Mukhtyar Singh,  

aforesaid had gone to Jaspur for personal work whereas

Crl.A. No. 642 of 2005                                                                                                                                            6

the complainant went into the jungle to relieve himself  

leaving the deceased in the house.  At about 7:00a.m.  

the deceased went to the tube well of Pyara Singh and  

asked him to provide water from his tube well in order  

to irrigate the paddy crop.  Pyara Singh refused to do  

so on which the deceased threatened that the sale deed  

of his land would be immediately executed in favour of  

Kartar Singh and Mukhtyar Singh, the other two sons.  

This infuriated Pyara Singh further on which he and the  

appellant herein assaulted the deceased with a ballam  

and  pharsi.   The  deceased  fell  on  the  ground,  

whereafter Chhinnder Kaur wife of Pyara Singh, caused  

him several injuries which resulted in his immediate  

death.  The incident was witnessed by Gurdev  Kaur,  

wife of the deceased, Charan Kaur her daughter-in-law  

and Rani the niece of the complainant and several other  

persons as well.  On hearing the alarm Mukhtyar Singh  

also arrived at the spot.  The assailants, however, ran  

away towards the jungle.  Mukhtyar Singh then made his  

way  to  the  police  station  and  lodged  a  First  

Information Report for an offence under Section 302/34  

of the Indian Penal Code.   

1.3 The  trial  court  on  a  consideration  of  the  

evidence  convicted  Gurdeep  Singh,  Pyara  Singh  and  

Chhinder  Kaur  for  the  aforesaid  offence  on  the

Crl.A. No. 642 of 2005                                                                                                                                            7

statements made by Gurdev Kaur and the others.  An  

appeal  was  thereafter  taken  to  the  High  Court  and  

during its pendency, Chhinder Kaur passed away.  The  

appeal of Gurdeep Singh and Pyara Singh was dismissed  

by the High Court.  It is the conceded position that  

the Special Leave Petition filed by Pyara Singh has  

been dismissed by this Court whereas notice had been  

issued in the case of the appellant, in the light of  

the fact that he claimed to be 11 to 13 years of age as  

on the date of the incident and being a juvenile could  

not have been tried before a Criminal Court.  

2. Before  us  today,  Mr.  Nagendra  Rai,  learned  

Senior Counsel has attempted to  argue the matter on  

the  merits of the case as well.  We find absolutely no  

reason to interfere in the orders of the trial court  

and the High Court insofar as the involvement of the  

appellant is concerned.  In the light of the fact,  

however, that there seems to be uncertainity as to his  

age on the date of the incident, we  feel that the  

matter  requires  a  further  inquiry  on  this  limited  

aspect.  We, accordingly, while dismissing the appeal  

on merits, remit the case to the trial court which  

shall make an inquiry under Section 20  of the Juvenile  

Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2000, read

Crl.A. No. 642 of 2005                                                                                                                                            8

with Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection  

of Children) Rules, 2007, and in case it is found that  

the appellant was not a juvenile on the date of the  

incident  of  the  offence,  no  further  orders  will  be  

necessary.  However, in case it is found that he was a  

juvenile, proceedings under the Act shall be taken and  

the sentence awarded to him will be set aside and his  

case will be forwarded to the Board set up under the  

Act.  We also direct that as the appellant is on bail  

he shall continue to remain on bail during the inquiry.  

...... ..................J [HARJIT SINGH BEDI]

........................J [CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD]

NEW DELHI JANUARY 25, 2011.