Skip to content


Emperor Vs. Paras Ram Dube - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1915All184; (1915)ILR37All187
AppellantEmperor
RespondentParas Ram Dube
Excerpt:
act no. xlv of 1830 (indian penal code), sections 32, 83 - offence of rape committed by a boy under fourteen--presumption. - cantonments act[c.a. no. 41/2006]. section 346 & cantonment fund (servants rules, 1937, rules 13, 14 & 15: [h.l. gokhale, ag. cj, p.v. hardas, naresh h. patil, r.m. borde & r.m. savant, jj] jurisdiction of school tribunal constituted under maharashtra employees of private schools (conditions of service) regulations act, (3 of 1978) held, school run by the cantonment board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such board comparable to the divisional board or the state board. the school tribunal constituted under section 8 of the maharashtra act cannot entertain appeals filed under section 9 by the employees working in schools which are..........committed the offence of rape on the person of a little girl about 7 years of age. the learned sessions judge has convicted in the alternative under section 376 or section 354 of the indian penal code, not because he was in any doubt as to the facts, but because he considered that there was a difficulty as to whether a boy of the age of the accused could legally be convicted of the major offence charged. the presumption of english law against the possibility of the commission of the offence of rape by a boy under the age of 14 years has no application in this country. the law on the subject of infancy in connection with criminal liability is laid down in sections 82 and 83 of the indian penal code and nowhere else. it was a simple question of fact which the learned sessions judge had.....
Judgment:

Piggott, J.

1. I called for the record of this case on examination of the Sessions statement from the District of Basti for the month of November, 1914. One Paras Ram, a boy described as being between 12 and 14 years of age, was charged with having committed the offence of rape on the person of a little girl about 7 years of age. The learned Sessions Judge has convicted in the alternative under Section 376 or Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code, not because he was in any doubt as to the facts, but because he considered that there was a difficulty as to whether a boy of the age of the accused could legally be convicted of the major offence charged. The presumption of English Law against the possibility of the commission of the offence of rape by a boy under the age of 14 years has no application in this country. The law on the subject of infancy in connection with criminal liability is laid down in sections 82 and 83 of the Indian Penal Code and nowhere else. It was a simple question of fact which the learned Sessions Judge had to try, as to whether, in the course of the assault perpetrated by the accused on the person of this little girl, such penetration had been effected as is required by law to constitute the offence of rape. If the statement of the girl Kolharia is read in connection with the medical evidence, there can be no doubt that the offence of rape was committed. I thought it advisable to place these remarks on record in view of the difficulty felt by the Sessions Judge. I do not propose to interfere with the sentence passed by him. The question of the proper punishment for an offence of this sort by boys of tender age is not an easy one, and many Sessions Judges of experience are of opinion that a sentence of whipping only is the most appropriate one that can be inflicted in such cases. I think the accused Paras Ram has been somewhat leniently dealt with, but that interference on the part of this Court is not now called for. Let the record be returned.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //