INTHE HON RLESUPRENTE COURT OR EUREK\ PETITION (Cr) NO. OF 4 IN THE MATTER ER OF DAVID & ANRL... APPELLANTS y STATE OF WALDHIEM ,.. RESPONDENT PPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE RESPOND ANT STATE OF \WAUDHIEM) (COUNSELS Al SUBMITED BY NAMB: AHSASUDDIN AHMED NATID (ap: 17BALS002 ous: BALES SEMESTER: 10"! SHeTtont &Ableviaions Uist oF Cases Bilbiogranhy Statement of huiadicton Starerent of Facts Legal issues ‘Summary of Arguments Arguments AdvancedABBREVIATION & And ALR. All Tndia Record A-L.D, (Crip Andhra Legal Decision (Criminal) Anr, Another Asticle Cateutta Criminal Appeal Criminal Procedure Code Criminal Crim.L Criminal Law Journal Edn, Edition Gow Government HP. Himachal Pradesh HC High Cour ie That Is rae Indian Law Reports id 7 dian Penal Code IPC . Juvenile Board commintes IBC Fae Juvenile Justice (Cate and Protection) Act, 2000 cr a Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Rul JJ Rules iLaw Jour Lins Himinal Miscellaneous Maca Law eum Madhya Pees Number Others Supreme Court Cases Supreme Court Reporter Supeetne Couit Reports (Sup) Supreme Court Section Supplementary Supra Count Reporter tar Fades Under Sections Versus Volume With Effet FromIPP PPS eas & SPP Pa ees east Ee LIST OK CASES SERIAL No, RIAL Ni cases oy State of MP. (2012) CLAP Ativan Kumite § 2 "abu Singh and Oey. The State OF UR, AIK 1916 SR Ginja Shoakary. State of UD, (1997) Appeal (eel ONE 4 Covina Chandra v. State of West Bengil (1977) 1977 Gai lad ISO 5 Jai Dhsgwan v Stake of Haryana, AIR 1990.50 10K “ Kishin v. State 2005) Appel (et) a Mor Pal v. State (2013) CRLNEC. 39693012 8 Pastap Singh v, Stale oF FP. (2021) Cr MP OM) 9, Stave of Bitar y, Rejends Agrawal, JT 1996 SCALE 399 10. Site of Bibar v. Muved Ali Kbau, AIR 1989 SCR Suph 455 ‘Suresh v. State of U.P. (2000) Appeal (ert) 821TOPO OOP are oneras OLE i i rT so 9 wee eel 5 SEATEAUINT OF JUREADIETION ie Hight To Challenge The futadicton version are Arguments voranduin Sets Forth The Facts; Contention andl ARSTATEMENT OF BACKS 6 sake of brit and convenience Of the Hon ble Curt the fet ofthe imaized 9s folho 1. On bet August 2014, The A 1 Avpust 2014, The Appellants David and Mohan Pari HR) Hon'be Supreme Coat of Eurekt forthe reriand case tothe and Suspension of the purishiicht respectively 2, David is/17 years old bay: 1d boy who is an orphan brow Un) BOR aaa «vicinity of Det Cutsem, Wah Sa ac i» Convoled and iit Pa J by Me K Ra 1d hay never been found Ke nt som of Mi. K Ra 2014, when only David end Mohat Purohit were thee init orPbai exhibition organized by some NGO 3B the Repailic of Eureka, The Orphan government 07 Eureka and was min 3. David Tein 1 he is very stole and irogert 8m itis 1S yeas ious orphans. Mohan f 4. On 13th Marc, with the security guards, they plannesto visit an were not present at the sacs refused them 16 6 why vitlaye, Since the warden and other aslo ontacted, the security orphanage ant couldn’s have been 5. Mohan Parsi bing brewed and crook peraidel MMSIOCON 7 and climb the vd accompanies en for Une exibison Deak thou Sag ‘wall of the orphanage limes the wall and ran away suity guards into the notice ofthe Mohan Purohit had - seid ene he quite tel intp& quanal ae thet ime eS David aggressively stvked on ihe bead 6. Intheexhibition que witha chikdoP his pee buy the sane toy eu avid Mohap arabic ond took an oH accom td sit Matar due to which he gt fein hit understanding the cir mediately Du ashe kept standing over tere wurder and Mai fied from the plese im sustaice ven tothe police and was 7, Mohan Pur He was David was caught anos taken tothe neds hospi harge of oe days of death of Mahan. oben aarested ender the jury Mo of head in win died: Attor Uh 8. After two ‘was also arrested from onet Eureke.-—> Medical Bvidence was i vas given that Mohan teeeived head injary ale dislocation of jw jaw and the head injury was sufficient to cause the d © 1, 18 yours in ordinary course of nature ‘and consequences a 1 his act therefore committed his eto the S him capax of comimitting the erime. 11. Both wer ried separately under Us 30413 Was iried by the Sessions Court, Guradom and Mohit Board, Guradem, 2. David submitted to the Court shat it has no juristiction t) insufficieiy of evidence of age 13, On 30th July, 2014 Tvenile Beard, Guradom found Moban ParObitg 6 read with Sec. 34 of IPC, 1860 and directed him {9 be sent te\Speclald fora maximum pered of one and balf ye. 14. Later on that day an appeal was prefered seeking sispesion of punishineniaaal J Seatons Court on the nile Board, which was dismissed by th judgment of Juv 1se beyond reasondble doubt based on ved the that the Juvenile Board has pre snd no other question of law was aised By te circumstantial and medical evidence a Appellant in the appest 1973 was filed in the High Court by. David seeking cite Boatd since the board has erred the case dlie 15./A petition under See. 482 of Cr. PC remanding back ofthe case tothe Jone of evidence and Sesions Coutts easing abuse of prose ct AW aH x petition was filed by Mohan Purohit for to insuil fias no jurisdiction to try his ease. Another review of the order of the Sessions Cout 1 the High Court, on the ground that esiaviet being, 1 petlitons were dismissed b conduct of the acsused refletstiemtion 10 16. Both the the crime and the idand that capan of committing. the petition lack merits inthe ease of Mohan commit crime in the case of Davis Purobil5 u, Whether the eave Board Comm Whether the pant LEGAL ISS elvaat wo.t Is Habito te re 14 of the appellant nnd tenSUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS Whee the ease ofthe appellant Board Committee or not? The Counsel humbly ibly submits before the Hon'ble cout that in the proves thatthe due process of law laid ny the jit ns wet in al pha on ofthe Hton’be Cour; fistly, tawand he Been HO ee, Si fe Sessions Court, ‘finding him Cspax of comming ant ft = © duty ofthe appellant ao, | to preduce evidence Paani READE . 3 of Ce. PC, 1973 and See, 103 of Indian visemes T8725 which has not happened in the present case and thus the Sessions Cou reject his argue 1¢ plea of juvenility raised by him in the court, Finally, under ‘See, 482 of the Cre seis its inherent powers, only when thre isa abuS=/65 POH he alm to meet the ends of justice, In-the present ease the lowes he jurisdiction under Sec. 482 oF the Higby evidence, unless it finds bodies, has duly futlowed the procedure governing ti contends by seeking attent Board Committe ons Court thro regarding PC, 1973 the High Court by any lower court and with th Courts does not show any abvise of powers and thas th the High Court cannot reappraise the law and thus itis the duty of the HC to decide mn the santé as, considering all the facts and Court cannot be invoked. Also, that there is any grave question of Court has decided the ease. Th manner as the Sessions fre the Hon’ble court that there has bees no 2 the couutsel submits bel 1 ive, David and thus the ease is not Lite to circumstances of the .e of Appellant Number Board Committee. error in deciding the cas ‘be remanded back to the Juvenile IL Whether the punishment of the appellant 00.2 be suspended or not? the punishment of the Appellant submits before the Hon'ble court that «dod that the basis of direct and ‘The Counsel humbly No.2 ie, Mohan Purohit eannot be suspended, It is content jences: PN coves that the Appellant Number-2 ie., Mohen Purohit had a cireumstantial evid Lie, David.to e pellant Number use grievous hurt to Mohan jon interition along with API ased succumbed to death, The cou decd comm insel further eontends that ‘asa consequence of which tevpoveeevsvsuyu = | \p | 2 je Mohan Purait, who bad gob into agile Wide Mohan ani (fight which linevally mein use of eertain violence and aggression. Futhes: it was inthis courye ofthe hight tna Dai ASS and took an iron rod and aggressively struck ito the Wend of Mohan, A ptanaing and nccused can be seer thrnugh the fit thal ene! Ha it was Appellant No progressively towk it to the stage ol of minds between boil the accompany the other nd ine company of each other the Gena OPE No: 2 omitted to stop’ Appellant’No, from commiting the nites THR authorities cited there exist #8 avong the both the appellants which ean be succeasflly derived Ins court in various other manlers Pett submits that, considering all the facts aid facts and the previous fuling of the Hon'ble C vent of the Appellant No. 1 extn a nvaximum period oF one a ‘See. 34 of IPC, 1860, Hence, the punishim« hie is liable to be sent to the Special home foree eee e@2se VV we eOueued os al Vv PSFRSoessv ARGUMENTS ADVANCED: 1. Whether the c of the appellant ne.t ty liable to he remand Juvenile Board Committee or nol? Been le oe ‘betore the Hon'ble cotart that [tthe present cake 6 , the proceedings at various judicial os well as gia compliance with the procedures as established by the governing Iaw’ Wit all cl to the appettant at each step, The eau PUREE js clearly evident from the faet sheet that the decision takeh by the JEG was be Well aware of consequences of Misa to ensure that justice is serve found the Appellant No. 1 iL.c,, David, to ase tothe Sessions Court finding him Gapax of commit Mie ang to his age th wnvended that in he committing his sed by the appellant in the JBC pertain no other question wai decision of the JBC is correct in laws It is 001 of West Bengal the Cateutta HE held that sd. was a juvenile offender and th safe to say that the Govinda Chandra v, State c the magistrate that accuse ions there was no illegality” “if no objection was raised befor ragistrate commits him fo the court of se said that there was no illegality enused By te cession Court Further itis contented that ie. David hus, relying on the above judgment it can be tothes 1 submission of the ‘Appellant No. 1 Also, when the plea of juvenility the honest {JBC while deciding the case and transferring Sessions Court was also correct in rejectine the ed to his age. sufficiency of evidences relat 1e same by the High Court reflects on the basis of ins was raised by him in the HC, the dismissa) of th with the rule Tad dow By the law governing cease is presented before the J cin 38 Act, 2000 and mes suet ome Im satisfied with the fact that accused (8 & guilty ofthe ofence, then the gBC cordance with the Principle oF of 1) Rules, 2007 compliance of the Hi BC, it holds an The counsel humbly submits that whenever # the provisions mention deems fit, If the JBC is ‘n of the offence and 1s inquiry in acvordance wil ion to the juvenile as it relati wt the date ‘of commissior Juvenile 0 10 the Sessions Court in ae cannot transfer the ease of juvenile Non- Waiver of Rights mentioned in Rule 3 au-rule (2) clause (IX 4a further contends that See. 4 Clause (3) of the JJ Act, 2007, mentions that fis appointed to the JBC unless he has special knowledge or training: 3 Child a ies the counsel acknowledges the expertise of the Magistrate of the JBC, Tor: iat David was well aware of the circuntstances of his act. By analyzing the: statement it is clear that the JBC could easily locate the merits in the case of the | regarding both his intention and the ability to commit the offence along with the of his age The counsel further secks the ettention of the Hon'ble court that since the JHC Rad error in committing the case of Appetiant No. 1 to the Sessions Court, the Sessions therefore not caused an abuse of law in hearing his petition. The Counsel fuller that after the case was committed to the Sessions Court by Juvenile Board proceedings of Session court will have to be conducted in accordance with tH ® prosecution under See. 232 of Cr. PC, 1973, if an accused: sec, 233 of the Cr. PC, 1973. 1973. In the trail process, through Section acquitted, then the case enters upon defense through sther contends in accordance with Sec. 103 of Indian Evidence Ast 18728 the burden of proving the same lies in his hands only Ths ‘as upon Appellant No. 1 ie, David t The Counsel fu iffa fact is known only to a person. it can be said the whole burden in the present case Wi idence of his juvenility, provided he had 1 to reject his submission stating that~ “there as produce the evi substantial evidence for the same in tie ‘absence of which the Sessions Court goes or insufficiency of evidence of age.” ‘A-contention further arises that, under Section 7(A) ofthe 11 Acts 2000, itis upon the shoulders: ard Commitee, to prove and sacsfy any clas of uventity of 8 person: Bit of the Juvenile Bo: the Hon'ble Court held that= in the case of Ashwani Kumar Saxena v. State of M-P- procedures, passes an order; that order shall once the court, following the above mentioned of juvenile in conflict with Taw. It has proof ofthe age as regards such child be the conclusive ) or Rule 12 that no further inquiry been made clear in subsection (5 Board after examining and obtaining sb-rule (3) of the Rule 12, Further. age of the Juvenility on is determination” court or the afier referring (0 s presumption of the Section 49 of the JJ. Act also draws @Ss Fs eee 2 oe dele edeadi dd dfs ovr e eee This deeision af the Hon'ble Cox was complied with i the case of Mor Paty. in the case of Babu Singh and Ors v, The State OF U.P. Allo in thee contended by the Hon'ble Court that a hyperstechnical method to f should not be used, Thus, relying on the above decisions of the submits that the conduct of the Sessions Couit dads hot refleet any: fn the later stage of the tria relating to the juvenile i, in the the sessions court has also not caused any abuse of power oF il submission by the Appellant No. 1 ie., David ‘ remanding back of the ease to the Juvenile Board Committee on the! has no jurisdiction to try the case and therefore causing the abuse of PC, 1973, The High Courtin its decision dismissed the petition, on the: No. 1 was Capan of committing the offence and that the conduct of the: intention to commit the crime. The Hon'ble court in the ease of Partap S held- “qt is equally well settled that the powers under Section 482, Code of Criminal distinct from the appellate or revisional powers ofthe court and inthe exercise of the High Court cannot make a reappraisal of evidence and to come 19.859 unless there are compelling eireun from the one arrived at by the court below, the conscience of the court.” by the Hon'ble Court in the ease of State of B court further held that sf jg not open forthe court either 1o shift the evidence or appreciate the conclusion that no prima facie ease is ‘made out.” of Bihar v. Murad Ali Khan the ‘Hon’ble court held 1973 has to be exercised given the working bela e The same view wais taken Agrawalla and the Hon'ble In the case of State “The jurisdiction Under Sec. 482 of Cr. PC, 1 circumspection and i inthe Meme has also.maa nae x a Hon’ble court that the case of Appellant No. 1 ie. David stan ete 0 the Juvenile Boord Commitice as thers Was no abuse of pawer By- the a quiisijudiciat bodies and also that the wppellant has not made the Propet ring these bodies. Hence, the case of sippelant should Of the mentioned laws gi remanded back to the Juvenile Board Committee, IL ' . 1. Whether the punishment of the appellant no.2 be suspended oF He The counsel most hum ounsel most humbly submits befare the Hon*ble Court shat the panishmient of should not be suspended, It is contended that in te pres in law, from the acts committed by him, before and after the eommission of etme: THE David U/s 304 & 326 read with See aken by Juvenile Board No. 2 ic., Mohan Purohit punishment awarded to Appellant No. 2, /.c.. Mohan Purohitisjust been charged along with Appellant No. 1 i IPC, 1860, The counsel further contends that the decision t [Uls 304 & 326 read with See, 34 of th 1860 and sending him to the remand home for a period of one anda half years is justified nis of “Common Intention” can fe inferred i He in awarding the punishment to Appellant No. 2 Jaw and is legally valid. Since the ingredier present case. ofthe Hon’ ble Court on the facts: ‘of the case on the basis of whieh man intention can be derived in the present cast: “In the exhibition Le with a child of his peer named Mohan (son of a well-known, gun. When the quibble turned into an Purohit and took an iron rod The Counsel seeks attention the pre-requisites of com Mohan Purohit had a quibbl pasinessian) as both of tem wanted 19 buy the same toy 1 Fight, David accompanied Mob head of Mohan, resulting which boy eot tances fled fiom that place immediately”: quarte] and eventually into and aggressively strike it onthe Purohit understanding the clreums common intention in the p ft is contended that the proof for has to be derived from the facts of the case, surrounding cireumstances and conduct of the accused after the commission of ‘crime, The Hon’ble court in. the case of Krishnan y- State held that — 10IIIS SF Pa vese bees o = v» le ‘The applicability of Sec, 34 is dependent on the facts and citeumstances of each ease: lity of Sec, 34 is dependent on the facts and ci A hard-and-fast rule can be madle icability oF He Spl at trl made out regarding applicability of nv applicability GFSe 3427 Similarly, the Hon'ble cour i ys the Hon'ble court in the ease of Gitja Shankar-y. State oFUP, Nek hit cotion 34 has been « has been enacted on the principle of joint {lability in the ding Ota? Recently rule of evidence and does not create a substantive offenee: ¢ Section is the element of participation in action. The Habiliy af 4 offence conimited Hy anathointhe le cof criminal net perpetrated arises under Section 34 if such criminal act is done in firtheraties of persons who join in committing the erime, Direct proof of camimen available and, therefore such intention ean only be inferred! Gren the eiEuE from the proved facts of the case and the proved cireumstances; An order niion, the prosecution has to establish by evidence plan or meeting of mind ofall the accused persons! charge of common inte circumstantial, that there wa: offence for which they are charged with the aid of Section 34, be it pre-arranged | of moment; but it musi necessarily be before the commission of the crime. The an act jointly, the position in Fi Section is that if two of more persons intentionally do the same as if each of them fas done it individually by himself” radgments it is contended that the preaf of commen: Thus relying on the above j present ease which can be derived on the basis of direct cas well 25. 2, before and after the commission o ‘Mohan Purohit along with Appellant as'a consequence of which his dea . ie Appellant No. | ive, Mohan Purohit ear from the fact sheet that afer the pellant no; 2¢., Mohan Pura understanding the circumstances ‘end that the conduct of the appellant. fred from that place immediately: TRUS itis safe to eon! his etal ntent in comming Me cme py accompanying seldom available in the circumstantial evidences regarding role of Appellant No. the crime and thus, itean ‘No, 1 had a common intention to grievous was caused. Itisclearly mentioned in the fact sheet that was accompanied by th commission of rime the AP n be said that Appellant no. 2 e., ly ht Mahan 1 Appeltant no, 1 and also itis ¢ after the commission of crime sh ‘Appellant no. |e. David: farther contended thatthe Hon'ble Court in the case of Jai Bhagwan»: Si of Haryana, vienion of Sec. 34 ofthe PC, 1860 cand held tht principles for the apP! This Jaid down certain Ww“To apply Section 34, of IC, 1860 apart from the fet that there should be two on ‘wo factors must be establishest: (i) common intention an! (it) partie the commission of an offence, If common intention is proved bul n0 0% “To attract section 34 IPC hwo postulates are indispensable: (1) The: a series of acts) should have been done, not by one person, but more! cof every such individual act cumulatively resulting in the should have been in furtherance of the common intention of all stich Thus, relying on the above eases of the Hon'ble court it is contended that t Sec. 34 of IPC, 1860 is to decide the degree of liabi the direct and circumstantial evidences from the facts. And also that no the appellant even though the See, 34 of IPC, 1860 can be invoked: “ble Court that considering all the above ¢ The Counsel submits before the Hon ance with these authorities, the cl Zie, Mohan Purch he Maa 1860 along with Appellant No. 1 cased Mohan which led to the death ¢ and the contentions made in conson: undoubtedly points towards Appellant No. intention, as defined under Sec. 34 of the IPC, voluntarily cause grievous hurt to the now deceye Oa eeaRAnnaanay 29 a) 1) ©