Patna High Court – Orders
Parshuram Pandey vs The State Of Bihar on 24 June, 2025
Author: Mohit Kumar Shah
Bench: Mohit Kumar Shah, Shailendra Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 693 of 2017
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-3 Year-2006 Thana- KARAHGAR District- Rohtas
======================================================
Deepak Pandey @ Rajnesh Kumar Pandey, son of Ram Pravesh Pandey,
resident of village- Kargahar, P.S.- Kargahar, District- Rohtas
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 678 of 2017
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-3 Year-2006 Thana- KARAHGAR District- Rohtas
======================================================
1. Parshuram Pandey s/o Late Ganga Sagar Pandey R/o vill - Kargahar, P.S.-
Kargahar, Distt.- Rohtas
2. Ramashankar Pandey S/o Late Ganga Sagar Pandey R/o vill - Kargahar,
P.S.- Kargahar, Distt.- Rohtas
3. Pawan Pandey S/o Parsuram Pandey R/o vill - Kargahar, P.S.- Kargahar,
Distt.- Rohtas
4. Arvind Pandey S/o Ramashankar Pandey R/o vill - Kargahar, P.S.- Kargahar,
Distt.- Rohtas
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 703 of 2017
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-3 Year-2006 Thana- KARAHGAR District- Rohtas
======================================================
Ram Pravesh Pandey and Anr
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
The State Of Bihar
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 709 of 2017
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-3 Year-2006 Thana- KARAHGAR District- Rohtas
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.693 of 2017(19) dt.24-06-2025
2/14
======================================================
Amrendra Pandey S/o late Ram Chandra Pandey R/o Village- Kargahar, P.S.
Kargahar, District- Rohtas at Sasaram.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 757 of 2017
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-3 Year-2006 Thana- KARAHGAR District- Rohtas
======================================================
Dharmendra Pandey S/o Late Ram Chandra Pandey R/o Village-Kargahar,
P.S.-Kargahar, District-Rohtas at Sasaram
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
The State Of Bihar
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 772 of 2017
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-3 Year-2006 Thana- KARAHGAR District- Rohtas
======================================================
Anil Dubey S/o Janardan Dubey, R/o Village- Loknathpur, P.S.- Karagahar,
District- Rohtas.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
The State Of Bihar
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 986 of 2017
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-3 Year-2006 Thana- KARAHGAR District- Rohtas
======================================================
Ashutosh Pandey S/o Late Ram Chandra Pandey, Resident of Village-
Kargahar, P.S.- Kargahar, District- Rohtas Sasaram.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
The State Of Bihar
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 1016 of 2017
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.693 of 2017(19) dt.24-06-2025
3/14
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-3 Year-2006 Thana- KARAHGAR District- Rohtas
======================================================
Dhananjay Pandey Son of Parashuram Pandey, resident of Village- Karaghar,
P.S.- Karaghar, District- Rohtas, Bihar.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
The State Of Bihar
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 1036 of 2017
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-3 Year-2006 Thana- KARAHGAR District- Rohtas
======================================================
Mithlesh Pandey Son of Ramashankar Pandey Resident of Village-Karagahar
P.S.-Kargahar District-Rohtas.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
The State Of Bihar
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 1161 of 2017
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-3 Year-2006 Thana- KARAHGAR District- Rohtas
======================================================
Daya Shankar Pandey S/o Late Ram Chandra Pandey Residetn of Village -
Kargahar, P.S. - Kargahar, District - Rohtas Sasaram.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
The State Of Bihar
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
(In CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 693 of 2017)
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Vindhyachal Singh, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Brij Bihari Tiwary, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Ms. Shashi Bala Verma, APP
For the Informant : Ms. Surya Nilambari, Amicus Curiae
(In CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 678 of 2017)
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Viveka Nand Singh
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sri Ganesh Prasad Jaiswal
(In CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 703 of 2017)
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.693 of 2017(19) dt.24-06-2025
4/14
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Brij Bihari Tiwary
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sri Ganesh Prasad Jaiswal
(In CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 709 of 2017)
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Binod Murari Mishra
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sri Ganesh Prasad Jaiswal
(In CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 757 of 2017)
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Binod Murari Mishra
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sri Ashwani Kumar Sinha
(In CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 772 of 2017)
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Dineshwar Mishra
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sri Mayanand Jha
(In CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 986 of 2017)
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Pramod Kumar Singh
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sri Abhimanyu Sharma
(In CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 1016 of 2017)
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Viveka Nand Singh
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sri Satya Narayan Prasad
(In CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 1036 of 2017)
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Ashok Kumar Pandey
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sri Shivesh Chandra Mishra
(In CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 1161 of 2017)
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Pramod Kumar Singh
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sri Shivesh Chandra Mishra
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAILENDRA SINGH
ORAL ORDER
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH)
19 24-06-2025
It has been pointed out by the learned senior counsel for
the appellant of the first case Mr. Vindyachal Singh that in the
said appeal i.e. Cr. APP (DB) No. 693 of 2017, the sole
appellant namely, Deepak Pandey @ Rajnesh Kumar Pandey
has been declared to be a juvenile on the date of commission of
the offence by an order dated 04.08.2021 passed by this Court in
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.693 of 2017(19) dt.24-06-2025
5/14
the aforesaid appeal, hence it is submitted by relying on
judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of
Karan @ Fatiya vs. State of M.P., reported in (2023) 5 SCC
504 and the one rendered in the case of Daya Nand vs. State of
Haryana reported in (2011) 2 SCC 224 that though the trial
conducted and conviction recorded by the learned Sessions
Court would not be held to be vitiated in law, nonetheless it is
the sentence passed by the learned Sessions Court which would
deemed to have no effect and on the point of sentence, the
matter is required to be remanded to the concerned Juvenile
Justice Board for passing appropriate orders regarding the
detention and custody with regard to the aforesaid appellant
under the provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act.
2. At this juncture, it would be apropos to reproduce
paragraphs Nos. 32 to 37 of the judgment rendered by the
Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Karan @ Fatiya (supra)
herein below:-
“32. It will be pertinent to mention that in this
judgment also there is no discussion with regard to the
issue as to whether the conviction should be set aside.
This judgment also does not lay down any ratio that if
with respect to a juvenile a trial has been conducted
by a Sessions Court without the accused having
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.693 of 2017(19) dt.24-06-2025
6/14claimed juvenility before it, conviction could be set
aside as being vitiated in law if subsequently it is held
that the accused was a juvenile.
33. The above judgments relate to an offence covered
by either the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 (“the 1986
Act”) or the 2000 Act. We now proceed to briefly
discuss the provisions under the 2015 Act. Section 9 of
the 2015 Act is already reproduced in the earlier part
of this judgment. According to sub-section (3) of
Section 9 of the 2015 Act, the Court which finds that
the person who committed the offence was a child on
the date of commission of such offence would forward
the child to the JJB for passing appropriate orders and
sentence, if any, passed by the court shall be deemed
to have no effect. This does not specifically or even
impliedly provide that the conviction recorded by any
court with respect to a person who has subsequently
after the disposal of the case been found to be juvenile
or a child, would also lose its effect; rather it is only
the sentence if any passed by the court would be
deemed to have no effect.
34. There is another reason why a trial conducted and
conviction recorded by the Sessions Court would not
be held to be vitiated in law even though subsequently
the person tried has been held to be a child.
35. The intention of the legislature was to give benefit
to a person who is declared to be a child on the date of
the offence only with respect to its sentence part. If the
conviction was also to be made ineffective then either
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.693 of 2017(19) dt.24-06-2025
7/14the jurisdiction of regular Sessions Court would have
been completely excluded not only under Section 9 of
the 2015 Act but also under Section 25 of the 2015
Act, provision would have been made that on a finding
being recorded that the person being tried is a child, a
pending trial should also be relegated to the JJB and
also that such trial would be held to be null and void.
Instead, under Section 25 of the 2015 Act, it is clearly
provided that any proceeding pending before any
Board or court on the date of commencement of the
2015 Act shall be continued in that Board or court as
if this Act had not been enacted.
36. Section 25 of the 2015 Act is reproduced
hereunder:
“25. Special provision in respect of pending
cases– Notwithstanding anything contained in
this Act, all proceedings in respect of a child
alleged or found to be in conflict with law
pending before any Board or court on the date of
commencement of this Act, shall be continued in
that Board or court as if this Act had not been
enacted.”
37. Having considered the statutory provisions laid
down in Section 9 of the 2015 Act and also Section 7-A
of the 2000 Act which is identical to Section 9 of the
2015 Act, we are of the view that merits of the
conviction could be tested and the conviction which
was recorded cannot be held to be vitiated in law
merely because the inquiry was not conducted by JJB.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.693 of 2017(19) dt.24-06-2025
8/14
It is only the question of sentence for which the
provisions of the 2015 Act would be attracted and any
sentence in excess of what is permissible under the
2015 Act will have to be accordingly amended as per
the provisions of the 2015 Act. Otherwise, the accused
who has committed a heinous offence and who did not
claim juvenility before the trial court would be
allowed to go scot-free. This is also not the object and
intention provided in the 2015 Act. The object under
the 2015 Act dealing with the rights and liberties of
the juvenile is only to ensure that if he or she could be
brought into the mainstream by awarding lesser
sentence and also directing for other facilities for
welfare of the juvenile in conflict with law during his
stay in any of the institutions defined under the 2015
Act.”
3. It would also be relevant to reproduce paragraphs Nos.
14 to 16 of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in
the case of Daya Nand (supra) herein below:-
“14. The effect of the amendments in the 2000 Act was
considered by this Court in Hari Ram v. State of
Rajasthan [(2009) 13 SCC 211]. In Hari Ram [(2009)
13 SCC 211] this Court held that the Constitution
Bench decision in Pratap Singh case [(2005) 3 SCC
551] was no longer relevant since it was rendered
under the unamended Act. In Hari Ram [(2009) 13
SCC 211] this Court held and observed as follows:
“59. The law as now crystallised on a conjoint
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.693 of 2017(19) dt.24-06-2025
9/14reading of Sections 2(k), 2(l), 7-A, 20 and 49 read
with Rules 12 and 98, places beyond all doubt
that all persons who were below the age of 18
years on the date of commission of the offence
even prior to 1-4-2001, would be treated as
juveniles, even if the claim of juvenility was
raised after they had attained the age of 18 years
on or before the date of commencement of the Act
and were undergoing sentence upon being
convicted.
* * *
67. Section 7-A of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000,
made provision for the claim of juvenility to be
raised before any court at any stage, as has been
done in this case, and such claim was required to
be determined in terms of the provisions
contained in the 2000 Act and the Rules framed
thereunder, even if the juvenile had ceased to be
so on or before the date of commencement of the
Act.
68. Accordingly, a juvenile who had not
completed eighteen years on the date of
commission of the offence was also entitled to the
benefits of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, as if the
provisions of Section 2(k) had always been in
existence even during the operation of the 1986
Act.
69. The said position was re-emphasised by
virtue of the amendments introduced in Section
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.693 of 2017(19) dt.24-06-2025
10/1420 of the 2000 Act, whereby the proviso and
Explanation were added to Section 20, which
made it even more explicit that in all pending
cases, including trial, revision, appeal and any
other criminal proceedings in respect of a
juvenile in conflict with law, the determination of
juvenility of such a juvenile would be in terms of
clause (l) of Section 2 of the 2000 Act, and the
provisions of the Act would apply as if the said
provisions had been in force when the alleged
offence was committed.
70. In the instant case, there is no controversy
that the appellant was about sixteen years of age
on the date of commission of the alleged offence
and had not completed eighteen years of age. In
view of Sections 2(k), 2(l) and 7-A read with
Section 20 of the said Act, the provisions thereof
would apply to the appellant’s case and on the
date of the alleged incident it has to be held that
he was a juvenile.”
Later on, the decision in Hari Ram [(2009) 13
SCC 211] was followed by this Court in
Dharambir v. State (NCT of Delhi) [(2010) 5
SCC 344] and also in Mohan Mali v. State of
M.P. [(2010) 6 SCC 669]”
15. In view of the Juvenile Justice Act as it stands after
the amendments introduced into it and following the
decision in Hari Ram [(2009) 13 SCC 211] and the
later decisions, the appellant cannot be kept in prison
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.693 of 2017(19) dt.24-06-2025
11/14
to undergo the sentence imposed by the Additional
Sessions Judge and affirmed by the High Court. The
sentence imposed against the appellant is set aside
and he is directed to be released from prison. He is
further directed to be produced before the Juvenile
Justice Board, Narnaul, for passing appropriate
orders in accordance with the provisions of the
Juvenile Justice Act.
16. The appeal is, thus, disposed of with the aforesaid
observations and directions.”
4. We find from the records that the appellant of the first
case i.e. Deepak Pandey along with other accused persons/
appellants has been convicted by the learned trial court vide
judgment dated 19.05.2017, passed by the learned court of
Sessions Judge, Rohtas at Sasaram in Sessions Trial Case No.
360 of 2007 (arising out of Kargahar P.S. Case No. 03 of 2006)
under Section 302/149, 307/149, 427/149 and 452 of the Indian
Penal Code and vide order of sentence dated 26.05.2017, he has
been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life with a fine of
Rs. 25,000/- under Section 302/149 of IPC, R.I. for ten years
with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- for the offence under Section
307/149 of the IPC, R.I. for six months with a fine of Rs.
1,000/- for the offence under Section 452 of IPC and a fine of
Rs. 1,000/- for the offence under Section 427 of the IPC.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.693 of 2017(19) dt.24-06-2025
12/14
5. This Court by an order dated 15.05.2019 passed in I.A.
No. 1291 of 2018 (in Cr. APP (DB) No. 693 of 2017) had
suspended the sentence of the appellant of the said case namely,
Deepak Pandey and he was directed to be released on bail
during the pendency of the appeal, upon furnishing bail bond of
Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty-five Thousand) with two sureties
of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned
Sessions Judge, Rohtas at Sasaram in Sessions Trial No. 360 of
2007.
6. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances
of the case, considering the fact that the appellant of the
aforesaid appeal bearing Cr. APP (DB) No. 693 of 2017 has
been declared to be a juvenile on the date of commission of the
offence vide order dated 04.08.2021 passed by this Court and
taking into account the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex
Court in the case of Karan @ Fatiya (supra) as also in the case
of Daya Nand (supra), we find that the order of sentence
passed by the learned Sessions Judge, as aforesaid, qua the
aforesaid appellant namely, Deepak Pandey has lost its effect,
hence while not interfering with the Judgment of Conviction
dated 19.05.2017, at the moment, the order of sentence dated
26.05.2017, passed by the learned court of Sessions Judge,
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.693 of 2017(19) dt.24-06-2025
13/14
Rohtas at Sasaram in Sessions Trial Case No. 360 of 2007
(arising out of Kargahar P.S. Case No. 03 of 2006), qua the
aforesaid appellant namely, Deepak Pandey is set aside and the
matter is remanded back to the Juvenile Justice Board, Rohtas at
Sasaram which shall pass appropriate orders regarding the
detention and custody with regard to the aforesaid appellant
namely, Deepak Pandey in accordance with the provisions of the
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act.
7. It is needless to state that the appellant of the first case
namely, Deepak Pandey who is already on bail shall appear
before the Juvenile Justice Board, Rohtas at Sasaram within a
period of two weeks from today failing which it would be
incumbent upon the Juvenile Justice Board to secure his
presence. The Juvenile Justice Board shall then pass appropriate
orders, as aforesaid, within a period of four weeks and transmit
a copy of the order so passed to this Court.
8. It goes without saying that in case any adverse order of
custody or detention is passed against the appellant of the first
case namely, Deepak Pandey by the Juvenile Justice Board,
Rohtas at Sasaram, the same shall be kept in abeyance for a
period of four weeks in order to enable the appellant to avail
appropriate remedies as provided for under the law.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.693 of 2017(19) dt.24-06-2025
14/14
9. We make it clear that the judgment of conviction dated
19.05.2017, passed by the learned Court of Sessions Judge,
Rohtas as Sasaram, in Sessions Trial Case No. 360 of 2007 has
not been annulled hence, the present appeal is de-tagged from
the rest of the aforesaid appeals and directed to be listed before
an appropriate Bench after receipt of the copy of the order to be
passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, as aforesaid.
10. Let the other appeals, except Cr. APP (DB) No. 693 of
2017, be placed for hearing, before this Court on 07.07.2025 at
10:30 A.M. as the first case.
11. The Registry is directed to send a photocopy of the
entire LCR pertaining to Sessions Trial Case No. 360 of 2007 to
the Juvenile Justice Board, Rohtas at Sasaram within a period of
one week positively.
(Mohit Kumar Shah, J)
(Shailendra Singh, J)
maynaz/BKS-
U T