Page 1

Non-Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1336 OF 2007

Mahendra Singh … Appellant

Versus

State of Rajasthan …Respondent

WITH

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1298 OF 2007

Ram Singh … Appellant

Versus

State of Rajasthan …Respondent

J U D G M E N T

Prafulla C. Pant, J.

1. These appeals are directed against judgment and order  

dated March 08, 2007 passed by the High Court of Judicature

Page 2

Page 2 of 9

for Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench, in D.B. Criminal Appeal NOs. 98  

of 1999, and 958 of 2004 (arisen out of Session Case No. 4 of  

1998 and 95 of  2002 respectively),  whereby said Court has  

dismissed the appeals of Mahendra Singh and Ram Singh, but  

allowed the appeals of accused Shyobai and Shakuntala Devi.  

Appeals of accused Dalip Singh and Maduram stood abated as  

they died in jail during pendency of the appeal.

2. Prosecution story, in brief, is that PW-2 Amar Singh gave  

a First Information Report (Ex. P-1) at Police Station Bahrod  

informing  that  on  06.10.1997  at  about  7.00  p.m.  accused  

Maduram, his three sons Roshan, Dalip and Ram Singh, wives  

of Dalip, Ram Singh and Maduram, Jagat Singh and Krishna  

Kumar (all from the same family) have committed murder of  

his cousin Rudmal @ Devendra in the field of Banhadwala. On  

the  basis  of  said  report  crime/FIR  No.  453  of  1997  was  

registered  and  the  matter  was  investigated.   After  

investigation,  first  charge  sheet  was  filed  against  accused  

Maduram,  Dalip,  Mahendra  Singh,  Shakuntala  Devi  and

Page 3

Page 3 of 9

Shyobai for their trial in respect of offences punishable under  

Sections 147, 148, 302 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal  

Code  (IPC).   The  investigation  against  accused  Ram Singh,  

Gyarasi  Devi,  Roshan,  Jagat  Singh  and  Krishna  Kumar  

continued under Section 173(8) of Criminal Procedure Code,  

1973, as they could not be arrested.  It appears, on completion  

of investigation another charge-sheet was filed against them.  

From  the  first  charge  sheet,  i.e.  one  filed  against  accused  

Dalip and others, after committal, Sessions Case No. 4 of 1998  

was registered,  and from the another  charge sheet  i.e.,  one  

against Maduram and others Sessions Case No. 95 of 2002  

was registered.  It appears that since the accused were in jail,  

Sessions Case No. 4 of 1998 got concluded before subsequent  

charge was filed, and was decided vide judgment and order  

dated 02.02.1999 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bahrod.  

And another Session Case No. 95 of 2002 (old No. 38 of 1999)  

subsequently  committed and registered,  proceeded after  the  

decision  in  the  matter  of  first  set  of  accused.  Evidence  of  

witnesses in the two cases was recorded separately and both  

were decided independently.

Page 4

Page 4 of 9

3. Present appellants before us are - Mahendra Singh, one  

of  the  convicts  in  Sessions  Case  No.  4  of  1998,  and  Ram  

Singh, one of the convicts in Sessions Case No. 95 of 2002.  

They stood convicted under Sections 148 and 302 read with  

Section 149 IPC.  These two convicts filed separate appeals  

(along  with  other  co-convicts)  before  the  High  Court.  

Mahendra Singh was appellant No. 3 in D.B. Criminal Appeal  

No. 98 of 1999 (arisen out of Sessions Case No. 4 of 1998),  

and Ram Singh was appellant in D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 958  

of 2004 (arisen out of Sessions Case No. 95 of 2002).  Both the  

appeals were heard together and dismissed by the High Court  

qua  present  appellants.   However,  appeals  of  Shyobai  and  

Shakuntala Devi were allowed and they were acquitted of the  

charge.  Appeals of Dalip and Maduram stood abated as they  

died in jail.

4. On  behalf  of  appellant  Mahendra  Singh,  only  point  

argued before us is that, it is apparent from the lower court

Page 5

Page 5 of 9

record that  he (Mahendra Singh) was aged 17 years on the  

date of the incident.  It is further stated that he has already  

underwent  imprisonment  of  more  than  ten  years.   Our  

attention  is  drawn  to  the  case  of  Hari  Ram  v.  State  of  

Rajasthan and another1, and it is contended that the benefit  

of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000  

(for short ‘Juvenile Justice Act, 2000’) should be extended to  

the  convict  Mahendra  Singh,  though  he  was  aged  above  

sixteen  years  but  less  than  eighteen  years  on  the  date  of  

incident and not  a juvenile  under the Juvenile  Justice  Act,  

1986.  

5. In  para  39  in  Hari  Ram’s   case  (supra),  interpreting  

special provision contained in Section 20 of Juvenile Justice  

Act,  2000, regarding pending cases and appeals,  this Court  

has observed as under: -

“39. The  Explanation  which  was  added  in  2006,  makes it very clear that in all pending cases, which  would include not only trials but even subsequent  proceedings  by  way  of  revision  or  appeal,  the  

1 (2009) 13 SCC 211

Page 6

Page 6 of 9

determination of juvenility of a juvenile would be in  terms of clause (l) of Section 2, even if the juvenile  ceased to be a juvenile on or before 1-4-2001, when  the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, came into force, and  the provisions of the Act would apply as if the said  provision had been in force for all purposes and for  all  material  times  when  the  alleged  offence  was  committed. In fact, Section 20 enables the court to  consider  and determine the  juvenility  of  a  person  even after conviction by the regular court and also  empowers  the  court,  while  maintaining  the  conviction,  to set aside the sentence imposed and  forward  the  case  to  the  Juvenile  Justice  Board  concerned for passing sentence in accordance with  the provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000.”

6. Since it is not disputed that appellant Mahendra Singh  

was less than eighteen years of age on the date of incident, as  

such, we agree with the argument advanced on behalf of the  

appellant Mahendra Singh that he is entitled to the benefit of  

Section 20 of Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, as it stands today.

7. On behalf of the appellant Ram Singh it is pointed out  

that the sole eye witness of alleged incident PW-2 Mahendra  

Singh s/o Suraj Bhan (in Sessions Case No. 95 of 2002), has  

assigned no role to Ram Singh. (Accused Mahendra Singh is

Page 7

Page 7 of 9

different person, who is son of Dalip Singh).  We have gone  

through the copy of the statement of witness Mahendra Singh  

s/o Suraj Bhan (Annexure P-4 in Criminal Appeal No. 1298 of  

2007), examined in the subsequent Sessions Case, and found  

that he has no where stated that Ram Singh was present at  

the place of incident or that he assaulted the deceased.  In his  

statement  recorded  on  6.4.2004,  the  sole  eye  witness  has  

named all the accused except Ram Singh. On careful scrutiny  

of the evidence of the sole eye witness PW-2 Mahendra Singh  

s/o Suraj Bhan in Sessions Case No. 95 of 2002, we find that  

the trial court, as well as the High Court, has erred in law in  

concluding that the charge against accused Ram Singh stood  

proved on the record.  

8. Therefore,  we are of  the view that Criminal Appeal No.  

1298 of  2007,  filed  by  Ram Singh,  deserves  to  be  allowed.  

Accordingly  the  same  is  allowed  and  conviction  recorded  

against him by the trial court and affirmed by the High Court,  

is set aside.  He is on bail and need not surrender.  

Page 8

Page 8 of 9

9. As  far  as  appellant  Mahendra  Singh  is  concerned,  we  

have already discussed that learned counsel for said appellant  

confined his submissions only regarding entitlement of benefit  

of  Section  20  of  Juvenile  Justice  (Care  and  Protection  of  

Children) Act, 2000, as it stands today.  Following Hari Ram  

(supra), we are of the opinion, he (Mahendra Singh) is entitled  

to the benefit as discussed in paragraph 4, 5 and 6. As such,  

while maintaining the conviction of said appellant Mahendra  

Singh, we set aside the sentence awarded against him. To that  

extent the impugned order stands modified.  Accordingly, D.B.  

Criminal Appeal No. 1336 of 2006 also stands disposed of.

………………….....…………J.          [Dipak Misra]

     .………………….……………J.               [Prafulla C. Pant]

New Delhi; December 09, 2015.

Page 9

Page 9 of 9