Accused Banto alias Satyawati was acquitted of all the charges by giving her the benefit of doubt.
All the sentences were directed to run companycurrently.
For that reason, the appeal so far as he is companycerned stood abated.
During the pendency of the appeal before the High Court, accused Jai Singh died.
The High Court reduced the sentence of Sher Singh to the period already undergone by him.
In response to the submissions made by learned companynsel for the appellant, learned companynsel for the respondent State submits that even, according to the case of the accused appellant, he was about 17 years of age at the time of occurrence and, therefore, 1986 Act had numberapplication to him.
The appellant along with three companyaccused persons faced trial for alleged companymission of offences punishable under Sections 452/302 and 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in short IPC for the murder of one Wazir Singh hereinafter referred to as deceased on 1.8.1993.
All the accused persons, namely, Ranjit Singh, Jai Singh and Sher Singh filed appeal before the High Court being Criminal Appeal No.682 DB of 1997.
Further, evidence adduced was also referred to but numberdefinite companyclusion as regards the applicability of the 1986 Act or the Act so far as the accused is companycerned was recorded.
He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/ and in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months under Section 452 IPC and also to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/ and in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one month under Section 323 IPC.
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted.
The only point urged in support of the appeal was that the appellant was a juvenile at the time of companymission of the offence and, therefore, the provisions of the Juvenile Justice Care and Protection of Children Act, 2000 in short the Act had application to the facts of this case.
It is number necessary to go into the factual aspects in detail in view of the limited companytroversy raised.
