2008 (1) TMI 913 - SC - Indian Laws

Interpretation of Statutes - Date for consideration of the age of the accused applying section 6 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 - Restriction on imprisonment of offenders under twenty-one years of age - imposition of punishment less than the minimum sentence prescribed by the statute - C. K. Thakker, J. - HELD THAT - In the present case, a certificate in the form of Scholar Record Transfer Certificate is annexed wherein the date of birth of the appellant was shown as June 28, 1962. The certificate was not on record either before the trial Court or before the High Court. From the True Copy, it is clear that it is purported to have been issued by the Principal only on February 10, 2007. Thus, it cannot be said that there is credible evidence or trustworthy material that the appellant was less than 21 years of age at the time of commission of offence. In my considered opinion, such question cannot be permitted to be raised for the first time in this Court and I am in agreement with my learned Brother on that point. Since the appeal can be decided on this ground, I refrain from expressing any opinion on the question dealt with and decided by my learned Brother on interpretation of Section 6 of the Act. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. P. P. Naolekar, J. - The decision interpreting various provisions of one statute will not have the binding force while interpreting the provisions of another statute. Section 6 of the Act has been construed by a 4-Judge Bench of this Court in Ramji Missar case 1962 (12) TMI 70 - SUPREME COURT and that will have the binding force while interpreting the same Section in same statute and the decision of the Constitution Bench interpreting provisions of the 1986 Act and the 2000 Act would not be held to be a decision on interpretation of Section 6 of the Act. Section 6 of the Act would apply to the accused who is under 21 years of age on the date of imposition of punishment by the trial court and not on the date of commission of the offence. If on the date of the order of conviction and sentence by the trial court the accused is below 21 years of age the provisions of Section 6 of the Act applies in full force. That being the case, even if the date of birth of the accused is held to be 28.6.1962 as alleged by him in the petition, on the date of delivery of judgment of conviction and sentence on 26.7.1985 by the Additional District Sessions Judge he was more than 21 years of age and thus was not entitled to the benefit under Section 6 of the Act. The accused has not claimed benefit under Section 6 of the Act during the trial before the Additional District Sessions Judge or before the High Court. Only material which was placed before the Sessions Judge or the High Court is the statement recorded of the accused appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein the age of the accused was given as 20 years. Hence, the appeal being devoid of any merit, is dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of Section 6 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.
2. Age of the appellant at the time of the commission of the offense.
3. Raising new pleas at the appellate stage.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Applicability of Section 6 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958:
The main issue revolves around the interpretation and applicability of Section 6 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. The provision restricts imprisonment for offenders under twenty-one years of age unless the court is satisfied that it is not desirable to deal with them under Sections 3 or 4 of the Act. The court must record reasons for sentencing such offenders to imprisonment. This was elaborated in the judgments of Daulat Ram v. The State of Haryana and Satyabhan Kishore and Anr. v. The State of Bihar, which emphasize that young offenders should not be imprisoned to avoid their association with hardened criminals.

In the present case, it was argued that the appellant was entitled to the benefit under Section 6 as he was below 21 years of age at the time of the offense. However, the court held that the crucial date for determining the applicability of Section 6 is the date of the judgment of the trial court, not the date of the offense. This interpretation is based on the precedent set in Ramji Missar and Anr. v. State of Bihar, where it was held that the age should be considered at the time of sentencing by the trial court.

2. Age of the Appellant at the Time of the Commission of the Offense:
The appellant claimed that he was below 21 years of age at the time of the offense based on a transfer certificate showing his date of birth as June 28, 1962. However, this certificate was not presented during the trial or before the High Court and was only submitted along with the special leave petition. The court found that there was no credible or trustworthy evidence to support the claim that the appellant was under 21 years of age at the time of the offense. The only material on record was the appellant's statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., where he mentioned his age as 20 years, which the court deemed insufficient.

3. Raising New Pleas at the Appellate Stage:
The appellant raised the issue of his age and the applicability of Section 6 of the Probation of Offenders Act for the first time in the Supreme Court. The court referred to the precedent in Yaduraj Singh and Ors. v. State of U.P., where it was held that new contentions regarding age should not be entertained at the appellate stage unless there is credible evidence on record. The court emphasized that raising such issues without proper evidence places an undue burden on the trial judge and disrupts the judicial process.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that:
- The appellant failed to provide credible evidence that he was below 21 years of age at the time of the offense.
- The crucial date for applying Section 6 of the Probation of Offenders Act is the date of the trial court's judgment, not the date of the offense.
- New pleas regarding age and applicability of Section 6 should not be raised at the appellate stage without credible evidence.

This judgment underscores the importance of presenting all relevant evidence during the trial and clarifies the interpretation of Section 6 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.