logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide
24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 MHC 7263 My Notes print Preview print print
Court : High Court of Judicature at Madras
Case No : CRL. RC. No. 2212 of 2026 & CRL. MP. Nos. 18372 & 18373 of 2026
Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
Parties : Perarasu Versus State rep. by the Inspector of Police Singanallur Police station, Coimbatore
Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioners: J. Jayan, Advocate. For the Respondent: A. Amarnath, Additional Public Prosecutor.
Date of Judgment : 06-10-2026
Head Note :-
BNSS - Section 438 r/w Section 442 -
Judgment :-

(Prayer: Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 438 r/w 442 of the BNSS, to set aside the Judgment dated 27.08.2026 in Crl A.No. 408 of 2025, on the file of the learned Sessions, Appellate Authority for cases under Juvenile Justice Act/Mahalir Neethimandram / Additional Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, Coimbatore, confirming the conviction and sentence made in Judgment dated 26.11.2025 in JC No. 87 of 2024, on the file of the Juvenile Justice Board, Coimbatore.)

1. The Criminal Revision challenges the judgment dated 27.08.2026 passed in Crl.A.No.408 of 2025 by the learned Sessions Judge, Sessions, Appellate Authority for cases under Juvenile Justice Act/Mahalir Neethimandram / Additional Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under the POCSO Act, Coimbatore, confirming the judgment dated 26.11.2025 passed in JC.No.87 of 2024 by the Juvenile Justice Board, Coimbatore, holding the petitioner guilty of the offence under Section 302 of the IPC and directing him to be kept in a Government place of safety till 25.06.2027 and from 26.06.2027 to 26.11.2028 in the Central Prison Coimbatore, under Section 18(1)(g) of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 [in short, ‘the Act’].

2 (i) The case of the prosecution is that on 17.02.2024, when the deceased and two other witnesses (PW1 and PW2) were talking with each other, at about 10.15 a.m., the petitioner came with chilli powder and threw it on the face of the deceased and had caused his death by attacking him with a billhook on the head, neck and other vital parts of the body of the deceased. The motive alleged by the prosecution is that the deceased had humiliated and harassed the petitioner’s sister.

                     (ii) On the complaint given by one Prakash, the father of the deceased, an FIR was registered in Cr.No.82 of 2024, for an offence under Section 302 of the IPC and since the petitioner was a juvenile at the time of occurrence (born on 25.06.2006), he was produced before the Juvenile Justice Board. Thereafter, a report was filed by the respondent against the petitioner for the offence under Section 302 of the IPC after furnishing the copies filed by the respondent to the petitioner.

                     (iii) The prosecution examined PW1 to PW14 and marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P25, besides two material objects, viz., M.O.1 and M.O.2. When the petitioner was questioned, u/s.313 Cr.P.C. on the incriminating circumstances appearing against him, he denied the same. The petitioner neither examined any witness nor marked any document on his side.

                     (iv) On appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the Juvenile Justice Board found the petitioner guilty of the offence under Section 302 of the IPC and passed the aforesaid order. On appeal, the appellate Court confirmed the judgment of the Juvenile Justice Board, Coimbatore. Hence, this revision.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the impugned judgments are liable to be set aside, as the Courts below had not taken into consideration the defence of the petitioner and that in any case, the sentence awarded by the Courts below in directing the petitioner to suffer a jail sentence from 26.06.2027 to 26.11.2028 is unsustainable and prayed for acquittal.

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, per contra would submit that the concurrent finding of facts is based on the evidence and the petitioner has not made out any ground to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the revision.

5. Considered the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record.

6. PW1 and PW2 are the eyewitnesses. The judgments of the Courts below would reveal that both had supported the prosecution case. PW3, who works in a shop near the place of occurrence, also corroborates their evidence. PW4 is another eyewitness and he identified the billhook used by the petitioner. PW5, is a witness, who came to know of the occurrence from other witnesses and thereafter went to the place of occurrence. PW6 is a Mahazar witness. PW7 is a relative of the deceased, who heard about the occurrence from the other witnesses. PW8, speaks about the motive for the occurrence. PW9 had downloaded the CCTV footages and handed it over to the police. PW10, was a witness to the confession and evidencing seizure of material objects on the confession of the petitioner. PW11 is the Principal of the School where the petitioner studied and had marked the educational certificate in which the petitioner’s date of birth is shown as 25.06.2006. PW12, is the person who issued the 65B certificate for the photographs taken at the place of occurrence. PW13, is the Sub-Inspector of Police, who registered the FIR. PW14, is the investigating officer.

7. The prosecution case, therefore, rests on the evidence of eyewitnesses, viz., PW1 to PW4, to prove the occurrence. These witnesses were not discredited in any manner. Therefore, the trial Court and the appellate Court were right in believing the evidence of eyewitnesses and holding that the prosecution had proved its case. Though the doctor was not examined, the postmortem report was marked as Ex.P16. Considering all the facts, the Courts below had held that the petitioner was guilty of causing the death of the deceased. There is no infirmity whatsoever in the concurrent findings of fact.

8. Admittedly, the petitioner, born on 25.06.2006, was aged about 17 years and was a juvenile at the time of the occurrence. The learned Magistrate invoked Section 18(1)(g) of the Act and directed the petitioner to be sent to a Government place of safety for the period between 26.11.2025 and 25.06.2027 and thereafter, directed the petitioner to be confined in Coimbatore Central Prison from 26.06.2027 to 26.11.2028. Presumably, the learned Magistrate had directed so, since on 25.06.2027 the petitioner would be completing 21 years of age. The direction in terms of 18(1)(g) of the Act by the learned Magistrate to the extent of sending the juvenile to a Government place of safety till he attains the age of 21 years, cannot be faulted. However, the further direction that he should be confined in Central Prison, Coimbatore for another period of one year is certainly not in accordance with law. The said order is beyond the scope of the orders that could be passed by the Juvenile Justice Board in terms of Section 18 of the Act.

9. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the petitioner shall be confined in the Government place of safety, where he was already confined, till 25.06.2027 and he shall be released thereafter. The petitioner shall surrender within seven days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, before the Juvenile Justice Board, Coimbatore, failing which, he shall be secured and produced before the Juvenile Justice Board, Coimbatore, for his confinement in the Government place of safety.

10. With the above modification, the Criminal revision is dismissed. Consequently, the connected Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
 
  CDJLawJournal