Prem Lata @ Praveen Sabbarwal vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And Others

Sureshwar Thakur, J

The petitioner, along with other co-accused, became tried for charges drawn against them under Sections 302, 382, 404, read with Section 201, and,

under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, and also, all the afore, under a conclusive and binding verdict made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court

upon SLP (Crl.) No 1962-63 of 2009, decided on 1.8.2013, became convicted and sentenced for life imprisonment.

However, much belatedly from, the afore conclusive and binding verdict of conviction and sentence, becoming pronounced on 1.8.2013, upon the

petitioner along with the other co-convicts with her, she rather in the year 2019, has preferred the extant petition before this Court, (i) wherein she

claims the benefit of Section 6, of, the, Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, inasmuch, as she claims that when she

incontemporaneity, vis-a-vis, the commission, of, the, afore charged offences, hence was a juvenile, and hence, was amenable for being put to trial

before the Juvenile Justice Board (in short ‘JJB’) concerned, (ii) and obviously, when she was not amenable for being to put to trial, before the

learned Sessions Court concerned, (iii) and whereupon(s), she claims that the entire trial which she faced before the learned Sessions Court

concerned, becoming declared to become, hence vitiated, (iv) and also concomitantly, the afore binding and conclusive verdict made by the

Hon’ble Apex Court, upon her, along with the, other co-convicts, being declared to be a nullity, and, hence being set aside vis-à -vis her.

She also through the extant petition claims that a direction be made upon the respondents concerned, to grant, her the facility of parole.

The Principal Division Bench of this Court, on 9.12.2019, had made an order, wherethrough, a direction was pronounced upon the Registrar

(Judicial) to conduct an inquiry, vis-a-vis, the date of birth of the petitioner. In pursuance to the afore order, the Registrar (Judicial) has placed before

this Court, an incisive report, detailing therein the trite factum of the petitioner, rather in contemporaneity, vis-a-vis, the commission of, the, afore

offences, being below 18 years. The afore conclusion is founded, upon, certificate borne in Ext. PJ2/A.

Consequently, the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner, has contended, with much vigor before this Court, for constraining this Court, to

grant the afore espoused reliefs, and, the anchor of his afore submission, becomes rested, upon, verdicts made by the Hon’ble Apex Court,

respectively in Criminal Appeal No. 1175 of 2014, titled Raju Vs. The State of Haryana and in Criminal Appeal No(s) 459 of 2018, titled Mahesh Vs.

The State of Rajasthan and others, (a) wherein it has become expostulated that the plea of juvenility, of, the accused/convicts concerned, can be taken

before the Apex Court, even when the afore plea of purported juvenility, of, the convict/accused concerned, remains un-raised, either before the

Sessions Court or even before the High Court.

However, for the reasons to be assigned hereinafter, both the afore verdicts, as become relied, upon by the petitioner, for constraining this Court to

grant the espoused reliefs, are inapplicable to the facts at hand, (a) rather, the afore expostulated therein ratio decidendi is distinguishable from the

extantly prevailing factual matrix, (b) inasmuch as, in both the verdicts (supra), rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court, Hon’ble Apex Court had

become seized, with a challenge being made therebefore, by the purported juvenile concerned, against his/her inaptly becoming put to trial, vis-a-vis,

the charges concerned, before the Learned Sessions Court, and/or before the High Court concerned, and, whereons, a verdict of conviction and

sentenced earlier thereto became recorded, upon him/her, and, also during the course of the Hon’ble Apex Court, becoming seized of the afore

appeals, hence, the afore plea became raised therebefore, reiterately de hors any plea of purported juvenility becoming earlier thereto, remaining un-

raised by him/her, (c) thereupon it became expostulated therein, that yet before the Apex Court, any purported juvenile, can meritworthily raise the

afore plea, obviously even before the Hon’ble Apex Court. Consequently, in both the verdicts (supra), after the Hon’ble Apex Court, hence,

analyzing the documentary evidence as became adduced before it, for therethrough, the purported plea of juvenility, of, accused/convicts concerned,

becoming strived to become sustained, it upon construing, it to become well founded thereon(s), hence, it proceeded to annul the verdict(s), of

conviction and sentence imposed, upon, the convict(s) concerned.

Be that as it may, the plea of purported juvenility, of, the writ petitioner, though has come to be accepted in the report of the Registrar (Judicial), yet

thereons, the espoused plea(s) cannot become vindicated by this Court, as their occurs, the complete contradiction inter se the factual matrix prevailing

in verdicts (supra), vis a vis, the facts existing at hand, (b) and the afore inter se contradiction becomes sparked from, (c) in the verdicts (supra), the

juveniles concerned, raising hence, before Hon’ble Apex Court, the plea of juvenility, rather obviously during the pendency of the apposite lis

before the Hon’ble Apex Court, (d) whereas in dire contradiction therefrom, the plea of juvenility has remained unraised, during the pendency of

the apposite lis before the Hon’ble Apex Court, rather has come to be raised, only after, a, conclusive and binding verdict becoming made by the

Hon’ble Apex Court upon SLP (Crl.) No 1962-63 of 2009 decided on 1.8.2013.

The sequel of the afore apparent inter se contradiction, inter se, the facts existing in verdicts supra, and the facts at hand, necessarily disable(s), the

writ petitioner, to contend, that the afore expostulated legal principles as become cast(s), in verdicts supra, becoming, also amenable, for being

leveraged, vis-a-vis, the writ petitioner, as thereupon the binding and conclusive verdict recorded, upon, the, writ petitioner, by the Hon’ble Apex

Court, would suffer the un-befitting legal consequence qua, hence, it becoming untenably annulled and set aside.

In aftermath, this Court, does not deem fit, and appropriate to proceed to grant the espoused reliefs, to the writ petitioner, inasmuch, as it appertains

to the report of Registrar(Judicial), becoming accepted, and this Court, proceeding to inaptly nullify the binding and conclusive verdict, (supra), as

made by the Hon’ble Apex Court. However, remedy, if any, available to the writ petitioner, is only through hers casting an apposite review

petition, before the Hon’ble Apex Court, wherethrough, she may strive for seeking a review, of, the afore verdict made by the Hon'ble Apex

Court.

Insofar as the relief, as claimed in the writ petition, for the petitioner, being ordered to be released, on parole, is concerned, even the afore relief,

can be recoursed before this Court, only when prior thereto, the authorities concerned, upon receiving, an application for the afore purpose, declining

the relief of parole, to the writ petitioner. However, since prior to the extant re- coursing by the writ petitioner, she has not made any recourse, qua

therewith, before the authority concerned, hence, it is open to the writ petitioner to make a prayer before the authorities concerned, for hers being

released on parole, and, if a verdict adversarial is made thereon, by the authorities concerned, thereupon, the writ petitioner is at liberty to recourse an

appropriate remedy, as contemplated under law.

In the above terms, the criminal writ petition stands disposed of, so also pending miscellaneous applications, if any. No costs.