HAKKIMversusSTATE REPRESENTED BY DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE

                     [2014] 7 S.C.R. 978


A                             HAKKIM
                                 v.
    STATE REPRESENTED BY DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT
                        OF POLICE
             (Criminal Appeal No.567 of 2012)
B                        AUGUST 6, 2014
        [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA AND
                 SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, JJ.]

c       Penal Code, 1860 - ss.. 302, 307, 3071149, 3021109, 449,
  324 - Conviction and sentence under- Prosecution cas~ that
  all the accused persons on provocation entered the house of
  PW 1 armed with weapons individually - Accused persons
  attacked PW 1, his family members and friend causing
D injuries to them - Three co-accused held the lady-wife of PW
  1 and A 1 slit her throat resulting in the death of the lady -
  Accused persons beaten by the people gathered and taken
  to the hospital and thereafter, arrested -· On basis of the
  evidence, courts below convicting all the accused u/s. 449;
E A1 u/s. 302, 307; A2 - A4 u/ss. 3071149, 3021109; and A3 -
  A4 u/s. 324 /PC and sentenced them accordingly - On
  appeal, held: Post mortem doctor in her certificate confirmed
  the multiple knife injuries found on the body of the deceased
  - Extensive injuries were sustained by the injured eye-
F witnesses - Thus, overwhelming evidence available on record
  to support the prosecution case as regards the use of multiple
  weapons in the crime committed by the appellants - It cannot
  be said that there was no scope to invoke ss. 109 and 149 and
  only Section 304 Part II, /PC can be applied - Further, having
  regard to the extensive use of the weapons by the accused
G in the process of killing of the deceased and the inflicting of
  the injuries on the prosecution witnesses, no concession in
  the matter of punishment can be given - A 1 being only 17
  years and 9 months on the date of the occurrence, and having

H                               978
HAKKIM v. STATE REP. BY DY. SPDT. OF POLICE 979

already suffered more than the maximum period of detention         A
as provided under the Juvenile Justice Act, while upholding
his conviction, he is entitled for the benefit of the provisions
of the Act and the sentence already undergone by him to be
sufficient - Sentence/Sentencing - Juvenile Justice Act.
                                                                   B
     Prosecution case was that a report ab6ut nefarious
activities of PW1 in a magazine provoked the accused
along with three others. On the fateful day, appellants-
accused armed with knives entered house of PW-1 and
                                                  •
attacked PW-1, his family and his friend who was residing C
with him, which resulted in death of PW-1's wife 'S',
injuries to PW-1, 2, 3, 4. Three of the accused held the
deceased 'S' and A1 had cut her throat resulting in her
instantaneous death. People living in and around the
place of residence of PW-1, gathered and beat the
accused, and were shifted to the hospital by the police. D
The appellants were arrested. PWs 1 to 4, injured
witnesses, PW-5, independent witness, employed on that
day for the repair of the house of PW-1, PW-10, doctor
who conducted post mortem, PW-8, doctor who examined
the injured witnesses, were examined. PW-10 issu.ed post E
mortem certificate and PW-8 issued certificates with
regard to injuries suffered by PWs 1 to 4. PW-32, doctor
examined the accused. FSL report confirmed presence
of blood on seven items. PW-10 stated that four knives
marked in the case could have caused the injuries F
sustained by the deceased as well as by other injured
 persons. The trial court convi'cted the appellants-accused
 under various sections, sections 302, 307, 3071149, 3021
 109, 449, 324 IPC and sentenced all the appellants-
 accused to undergo RI for a period of 5 years for G
 commission of offence u/s. 307; A1 was sentenced to
 undergo life imprisonment for the offence u/s. 302; A2 to
 A4 were sentenced to undergo three years RI for the
 offence u/s. 3071149 and undergo life imprisonment for
 the offence uls. 3021109; and A3 and A4 were sentenced H
    980    SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2014] 7 S.C.R.


A to undergo six months RI for the offence u/s. 324 IPC. The
  Division Bench of the High Court upheld the conviction
  and sentence. Hence the instant appeal.

      Disposing of the Criminal Appeal filed by A-1 and
  dismissing the Criminal Appeal filed by A-2, A-3 and A-4,
8
  the Court

       HELD: 1.1. There is no scope for reducing the
  sentence. As far as the submission made based on single
  knife is concerned, it is a case where the accused were
C apprehended on the spot and the recovery of the
  weapons was also carried out at the time when they were
  apprehended. The said factor cannot be disputed in as
  much as apart from the eye witness account of injured
  witnesses PWs-1 to 4, the accused themselves were
D examined by the doctor PW-32. The injuries on their
  bodies were noted and according to PW-32, at that point
  of time the accused themselves stated that they were
  thrashed by the public which is in tune with the case of
  the prosecution. [Para 16] [990-D-G]
E
       1.2. It is also not in dispute that recovered knives
  were placed before the trial court. That apart, PW-10, the
  post mortem doctor in her certificate confirmed the
  multiple knife injuries found on the body of the deceased.
  While one of the injuries was on the neck which was
F attributed to A-1, there were other injuries on the vital
  parts of the body as well as other parts numbering 13 and
  all of them were incised wounds ranging from 2cm x 1cm
  to 15cm x 7cm. Therefore, it is futile on the part of the
  appellant to contend that only one knife was used to
G cause so many injuries on the body of the deceased.
  [Para 17] [990-G-H; 991-A-B]

       1.3. That apart, according to PW-8, the doctor who
    examined, PWs-1 to 4 and issued Exhibits P-6 to P-9
H
  HAKKIM v. STATE REP. BY DY. SPOT. OF POLICE 981

  which revealed that PW-1 suffered one grievous injury,         A
  PW-2 suffered one cut injury on the back apart from one
  abrasion, PW-3 suffered two simple injuries and PW-4
  suffered six cut injuries of which 1 to 3 were simple and
  4 to 6 were grievous. One of the injuries suffered by PW-
. 4 resulted in severance of her right hand ring finger. When    B
  such extensive injuries were sustained by the injured eye
  witnesses, it is too late in the day for the appellant to
  contend and for the Court to accept that only one knife
  was used and the placement of the other three knives
  could not have been relied upon. The trial court as well       c
  as the High Court rightly rejected the said submissions
  as such overwhelming evidence was available on record
  to support the case of the prosecution as regards the use
  of multiple weapons in the crime committed by the
  appellants. [Para 18] [991-8-E]                                D
       1.4. Once the said contention of the appellants is
 rejected, the other contentions, namely, that there was no
 scope to invoke Sections 109 and 149, IPC would also
 fall to the ground. If that is the outcome, there is no scope
 to find fault with the ultimate conclusion of the trial court   E
 having convicted the appellants for the offences· found
 proved against them for which the sentence came to be
 imposed. Therefore, it cannot be said that only Section
 304 Part II, IPC can be applied and a lesser punishment
 should be imposed. Having regard to the extensive use           F
 of the weapons by the accused in the process of killing
 of the deceased and the inflicting of the injuries on PWs-
 1 to 4, there is no scope to show any concession in the
 matter of punishment and consequently the said
 submission stands rejected. [Para 19] [991-F-H; 992-A]          G

     1.5. Once, it ,is shown that the appellant in Criminal
 Appeal No.1410 of 2011, who was A-1, was only 17 years
 and 9 months on.the date of the occurrence, the decision
 reported in Ajay Kumar's case applies. Having regard to         H
    982      SUPREME COURT REPORTS             [2014] 7 S.C.R.

A the legal position therein, the very same consequences
  set out in the said decision should apply to the case of
  the appellant who has already suffered more than the
  maximum period of detention as provided under the
  Juvenile Justice Act. The said appellant was enlarged on
B bail by this Court's order dated 18.07.2011. Therefore,
  while confirming his conviction as per the judgment
  impugned in the instant appeal, he is entitled for the
  benefit of the provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act and
  the sentence already undergone by him should be
c sufficient for the above conviction. Therefore, he should
  not be detained any more in this case unless his
  detention is warranted in any other case. lPara 21, 22]
  [992-F; 993-F-H; 994-A]

      Ajay Kumar v. State of Madhya Pradesh 2010 (15) SCC
D 830 - relied on.

      Ankush Shivaji Gaikwad v. State of Maharashtra 2013 (6)
  SCC 770 and Roy Fernandes v. State of Goa and others
  2012 (1) SCR 477: 2012 (3) SCC 221; Hari Ram v. State of
E Rajasthan and another 2009 (7) SCR 623: 2009 (13) sec
  211; Jitendra Singh alias Babboo Singh and another v. State
  of Uttar Pradesh 2013 (11) SCC 193 - referred to.
                        Case Law Reference:

F     2013 (6) sec 110           Referred to         Para 13
      2012 (1) SCR 477           Referred to         Para 13
      2009 (7) SCR 623           Referred to         Para 14
      2013 (11) sec 193          Referred to         Para 14
G
      2010 (15) sec 83           Relied on           Para 21
        CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
    No.567 of 2012.

H         From the Judgment and Order dated 23.07.2008 passed
HAKKIM v. STATE REP. BY DY. SPOT. OF POLICE. 983


by the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Madras in Criminal    A
Appeal No. 359 of 2005.

                              WITH

Crl. A. No. 1410 of 2011.
                                                                 B
Crl. A. No. 568 of 2012.

    K. T. S. Tulsi, Ratnakar Dash, G. Sivabalamurugan, Anis
Mohammad, Sandeep Kumar, Raj Kamal, L.K. Pandey for the
Appellant.                                                       c
    Subramonium Prasad, AAG., M. Yogesh Kanna, A.
Santhakumaran, Ranjit Dhalal for the Respondent.

    The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
                                                                 D
     FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J. 1. In
these appeals preferred by Accused Nos.1 to 4 (hereinafter
referred to as 'A-1, A-2, A-3 and A-4'), the Appellants herein
seek to challenge the judgment passed by the Division Bench
of the High Court of Judicature at Madras. The Division Bench    E
by the impugned judgment dated 23.07.2008 in Criminal
Appeal No.359 of 2005 c:;g_nfirmed the conviction and sentence
imposed by the learned Sessions Judge in the judgment dated
06.04.2005 in SC No.240 of 2003.

     2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the case of the            F
prosecution was that PW-1 by name Alim George was a
resident of Kaliba Sahib Street in Nagur Town. He was living
with his three wives by name Fatima, Sayeeda (deceased) and
Sameema and their mothers, his daughter Jeni, his son Jaffer
Hussain, Rahana sister of his deceased wife Sayeeda, one of      G
his friends by name Goodnameshah PW-2 and his nephew
Niyaz Ahmad PW-3 were also living along with him. PW-1
stated to have worked as Imam in some mosque in
Koothanallur before setting up his residence in Nagur. He also
stated to have worked as Principal in the Melapalayam Arabic     H
    984      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                · [2014] 7 S.C.R.


A   college. He has also worked as Imam in a mosque in Malaysia
    apart from serving as a teacher in a Madrasa at Udumalaipet.
    His guru was stated to be one Sayed Ali Sahib in Nagur.

       3. There were certain allegations against PW-1 to the effect
  that he was indulging in certain nefarious activities, namely,
8
  exploiting women folk by drugging them and also thereafter
  blackmailing them. At the instance of PW-23, a report appeared
  about the nefarious activities in a magazine called "Yevukanai".
  According to the prosecution, the said report provoked the
  accused along with three others, two of whom were also
C prosecuted before the trial Court which resulted in their
  involvement in the present crime alleged against them.

         4. It is stated that when PW-1 along with the other residents
   was in his house on 26.10.1996 at 4.00 p.m., the door of the
D house was pushed open by the Appellants-accused holding
   knives in their hands, they entered the house and asked for
   PW-1 by calling who was 'George' and one of the accused
   placed a knife on the neck of PW-3 while another accused
   pulled the deceased Sayeeda by her hair and yet another
E person advanced towards PW-1 while another accused
   extorted to 'kill him'. When the accused attempted to inflict
   injuries on PW-1, he warded off the same which resulted in an
   injury to his forehand. At that point of time while deceased
   Sayeeda raised an alarm, the accused persons caught hold of
F her hands and legs and inflicted multiple injuries on her. When
   PW-4, the mother of the deceased came for her rescue, she
 . was inflicted with stab injuries in which process her right hand
   ring finger got severed. While three of the accused held the
   deceased Sayeeda, A-1 stated to have cut her throat which
G resulted in her instantaneous death. When PWs-2 and 3 tried
   to intervene, they were also inflicted with knife injuries.

       5. In view of the milieu created, people living in and around
  the place of residence of PW-1, gathered around and caught
  hold of all the four accused-Appellants. The deceased and the
H injured were shifted to the hospital where PW-1 's statement
  HAKKIM v. STATE REP. BY DY. SPOT. OF POLICE 985
    [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.]
 Exhibit P-5 was recorded which was registered as Crime            A
 'No.464 of 1996 at 6.30 p.m. at Nagur Police Station under
 Sections 147, 148, 452, 324, 307 and 302, IPC and the express
 report was forwarded to the Judicial Magistrate at
 Nagapattinam and was delivered at 00.10 hours.
                                                                   B
       6. The accused, who were held by the neighbours, were
 beaten by the public and were shifted to the hospital by the
 police personnel. It is in the above stated background that the
 Appellants were arrested along with the other two accused and
 after recording the statements of witnesses, the charge-sheet     C
 came to be filed. Apart from PWs-1 to 4, the injured eye
 witnesses related to the deceased, an independent witness
 PW-5 who was employed on that day for changing the tiles of
 the roof of the house of PW-1 was also examined. PW-10 was
 the post mortem doctor and Exhibit P-15 is the post mortem
 certificate. PW-8 was the doctor who examined the injured eye     D
 witnesses PWs 1 to 4 and Exhibits P-6, P-7, P-8 and P-9 were
 the certificates issued by PW-8. M.Os. 2 to 5 were the knives.
 The accused Appellants were arrested on 26.10.1996 at 7 p.m.
 i.e. on the date of occurrence.
                                                                   E
        7. PW-1 suffered one grievous injury which is a cut injury
  at left forearm. PW-2 suffered one cut injury on the back apaj\
  from on~ abrasion. PW-3 suffered two simple injuries. PW-4 '
  suffered six cut injuries, of which injury Nos.1. to 3 were simple
. and injury Nos.4 to 6 were grievous. PW-32, the doctor F
  examined the accused on 27.10.1996 at 4.35 p.m. Exhibits P-
  40, 41, 42 and 39 were the certificates issued by PW-32
  relating to injuries sustained by A-1 to A4, respectively. It was
  recorded by PW-32 to the effect that the accused Appellants
  informed PW-32 that they were beaten up by the public. Exhibit G
  P-29 is the FSL report confirming presence of blood in seven
  items. Exhibit P-30 disclosed the blood group of deceased as
  'O' group. It also revealed that the blood found in one of the
  knives was disintegrated. PW-10, in her evidence, stated that
  the four knives marked in the case could have caused the H
     986      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2014) 7 S.C.R.


A injuries sustained by deceased as well as by other injured
  persons.

            8. In the trial Court, the prosecution examined as many as
      34 witnesses apart from marking Exhibits P-1 to P.42. M.Os.1
      to 11 the material objects were also placed before the Court.
 8
      M.Os.2 to 5 were the knives which were used in the crime.
      M.Os.7 to 11 were the dress worn by the deceased Sayeeda.
      M.0.6 was the blood stained cement flooring while M.0.7 was
      the cement flooring without blood stain. The trial Court reached
-C the ,eonclusi that all the charges framed against A-5 and A-
      6.were n proved beyond all reasonable doubts and, therefore,
     ithey were acquitted. It also held that the charges framed under
      Section 1208 IPC against A-1 to A-4, that the charge framed
      against A-3 under Section 324, IPC (one count) and the charge
      framed against A-4 under Section 326, IPC were not proved.
 D They were accordingly acquitted of the said charges. It,
       however, found all the Appellants-accused guilty of the charges
       under Section 449, IPC and A-1 was found guilty of charges
       under Section 307, IPC and 302, IPC as well as charge under
   ·.. section 324, IPC found proved against A-3 and A-4. The
 E · Appellants were sentenced to undergo RI for a period of 5 years
      ,for the charge found proved against them under Section 449,
       IPC. A-1 was sentenced to undergo RI for three years for an
       offence under Section 307, IPC. A-2 to A-4 were sentenced to
       undergo three years RI for the offence under Section 307 read
 F with Section 149, IPC. A-1 was sentenced to undergo life
       imprisonment for the offence under Section 302, IPC and A-2
       to A-4 were sentenced to undergo life imprisonment for the
       offence under Sectitrn 302 read with Section 109, IPC. A-3 and
       A-4 were sentenced to undergo six months RI for the offence
 G under Section 324, IPC.
            9. In the light of the long period during which they were in
     jail in other cases and since it was pleaded that there was none
     to pay any fine on their behalf, the·trial Court refrained from
     imposing any fine on Appellants-accused. By the impugned
 H
  HAKKIM v. STATE REP. BY DY. SPOT. OF POLICE 987
    [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.]
 judgment the Division Bench of the High Court having                  A
 confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial
 Court the Appellants are before us.

       10. We heard Mr. K.T.S. Tulsi and Mr. Ratnakar Dash,
  learned Senior Counsel for the Appellants and Mr.                    B
  Subramonium Prasad, learned Additional Advocate General for
  the State. Mr. Tulsi in his submissions focused mainly on the
  sentence aspect apparently finding that the accused Appellants
  were apprehended at the crime spot and caught red-handed.
  We also do not find anything wrong in the approach of the            C
  learned Senior Counsel in making the submissions as above
  in the peculiar facts of this case. In support of his submissions,
  the learned Senior Counsel pointed out that while four knives
  M.Os. 2 to 5 were marked in the case, only one knife was sent
  for scientific examination in which though blood was noted as
  per Exhibit P-30 the blood found was disintegrated. The learned      D
  Senior Counsel would, therefore, contend that it will have to be
  proceeded on the footing that only one knife was used in the
- crime. By pointing out the said factor, learned Senior Counsel
  contended that it will have a serious bearing on the charge
   under Section 109, IPC as well as invocation of Section 149,        E
   IPC could not have been made.

         11. The learned Senior Counsel, therefore, contended that
   the intention of A-1 who was armed with a knife and the others
   can only be attributed with knowledge, in which event, at best      F
   the conviction can be only under Section 304 Part 11, IPC and
   not for the offences for which they were convicted. To strengthen
   the above submission, learned Senior Counsel pointed out that
   the injuries found on the body of the deceased under Exhibit
   P-15 also disclosed that other than the injury on the neck which    G
   was attributed to A-1, there was no other injury on any other
   vital part of the body of the deceased. The learned Senior
   Counsel in his submissions, therefore, contended· that at best
,. the other accused can only be attributed with the possibility of
    over enthusiasm and exaggeration and, therefore, taking the        H
    988     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2014] 7 S.C.R.


A   above factors into account, it should be held that the sentence
    already suffered should be held to be sufficient.

         12. The learned Senior Counsel contended that-the.
    accused were arrested on 26.10.1996 i.e. on the date of
    occurrence, that while A-1 and A-2 were granted bail. on
8
    05.06.1997, A-3 and A-4 were granted bail on 26.05.1997. The
    learned Senior Counsel also submitted that A-1 and A-2 were
    subsequently arrested in connection with the Coimbatore bomb
    blast case on 28.03.1998 while A-3 and A-4 were arrested on
C 24.10.1998 and 16.11.1998, respectively. The learned Senior
    Counsel contended that while A-1 was convicted in the
    Coimbatore bomb blast case for seven years and he has
    already suffered the sentence, A-2 was sentenced to life
    imprisonment. As far as A-3 is concerned, it was submitted that
    he was acquitted in the bomb blast case and no further appeal
_D was filed against the said acquittal. A-4 was stated to have
    been imposed the sentence of 1Oyears and he is undergoing
    the sentence. The learned Senior Counsel, therefore, reiterated
    his submission that if the Appellants' intention to kill was not
   ·there and in the absence of Sections 109 and 149, IPC being
E applied, at best, it can only be said that the knowledge of the
    Appellants could have been only to the extent of likelihood of
    death of the deceased and, therefore, 304 Part II, IPC can only
    be applied.

F      13. Mr. Ratnakar Dash, learned Senior Counsel who
  appeared for some of the Appellants submitted that while
  according to the case of the prosecution, seven persons were
  involved in the crime, only four were caught red handed, that
  the clothes worn by the accused were not recovered and sent
G for serological test and in the circumstances when PW-1 was
  not done to death and the deceased came to be killed, no
  intention can be attributed to the killing of the deceased as
  against the accused. The learned Senior Counsel, therefore,
  contended that the offence of murder cannot be affirmed as
H confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge as well as the High
  HAKKIM v. STATE REP. BY DY. SPOT. OF POLICE 989
    [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.]
Court. Learned Senior Counsel relied upon the decisions              A
reported in Ankush Shivaji Gaikwad v. State of Maharashtra
- ~013.(6) SCC 770 and Roy Fernandes v. State of Goa and
others - 2012 (3) sec 221 in support of his submissions.

        14. Mr. Tulsi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for
                                                                     8
  Appellant in Criminal Appeal No.1410 of 2011 submitted that
'indisputably he was a juvenile on the date of occurrence anC:
  when the said plea was raised before the High Court, the High
  Court declined to grant the relief even though as a matter of
  fact it was recorded that the age of the Appellant on the date     C
  of the occurrence was 17 years and 9 months holding that he
  was not a juvenile under the provisions of the Juvenile Justice
  Act of 1986 as per the law that was prevailing on that date. The
; learned Senior Counsel pointed out that having regard to the
1
  development of law as held in the subsequent decisions in Hari
  Ram v. State of Rajasthan and another - 2009 (13) sec 211,         D
  Ajay Kumar v. State of Madhya Pradesh - 2010 (15) SCC 83
  and Jitendra Singh alias Babboo Singh and another v. State
  of Uttar Pradesh - 2013 ( 11) sec 193 even if the conviction
  of the said Appella.nt is to be confirmed, he is entitled to the
  benefit in the matter of -sentence as provided under the           E
  provisions of the Ju'Venile Justice Act.

      15. Mr. Subramonium Prasad, learned Additional
Advocate General for the State in his submissions pointed out
that the contention based on the FSL report on the use of one F
knife alone cannot be accepted, inasmuch as, at the time when
the accused were apprehended on the spot all the four knives
were recovered with the aid of mahazar witnesses which were
duly placed before the Court. Learned Additional Advocate
General also relied upon the eye witness account of PWs 1 to
4 who referred to the use of all the four knives indiscriminately
on the spot by the four accused which evidence was further
supported by the various injuries sustained by those witnesses
some of which were grievous in nature apart from the evidence
of the independent witness PW-5. Learned Additional_ H
    990      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2014] 7 S.C.R.


A Advocate General also pointed out that the deceased having
   suffered as many as 14 injuries all over her body, it is futile on
   the part of the Appellant to contend that only one knife could
   have been used which was attributed to A-1. Learned Additional
   Advocate General, therefore, submitted that invoking Section
B 30? read along with Sections 109 and 149 was rightly and
   correctly applied for which they were ultimately convicted.
   Learned Additional Advocate General contended that all the
   accused entered the house. of PW-1 fully planned with an
   inte;ition to kill, armed with weapons individually and, therefore,
c '.havil\g regard to their involvement in the occurrence in which
   one died while two others were seriously injured apart from two
   others who suffered minor injuries and, therefore, there is no
   scope for any leniency in the matter of sentence.

       16. Having heard the re.spective submissions of the
D learned counsel, we are also convinced that there is no scope
  for reducing the sentence as was submitted by the learned
  Additional Advocate General. As far as the submission made
  based on single knife is concerned, as rightly pointed out by
  learned Additional Advocate General, it is a case where the
E accused were apprehended on the spot and the recovery of
  the weapons was also carried out at the time when they were
  apprehended. The said factor cannot be disputed in as much
  as apart from the eye witness account of injured witnesses
  PWs-1 to 4, the accused themselves were examined by the
F doctor PW-32 on 27.10.1996 at 4.35 p.m. The injuries on their
  bodies were noted under Exhibits P-39 to 42 and according
  to PW-32, at that point of time the accused themselves stated
  that they were thrashed by the public which is in tune with the
   case of the prosecution.
G
         17. It is also not in dispute that recovered knives were
    placed before the trial Court and marked as M.Os.2 to 5. That
    apart, PW-10, the post mortem doctor in her certificate Exhibit
    P-15 confirmed the multiple knife injuries found on the body of
    the deceased. While one of the injuries was on the neck which
H
 HAKKIM v. STATE REP. BY DY. SPOT. OF POLICE                   991
   [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.]
Nas attributed to A-1, there were other injuries on the vital parts    A
of the body as well as other parts numbering 13 and all of them
were incised wounds ranging from 2cm x 1cm to 15cm x ?cm.
Therefore, it is futile on the part of the Appellant to contend that
only one knife was used to cause sc many injuries on the body
of the deceased.                                                       B

       18. That apart, according to PW-8, the doctor who
examined PWs-1 to 4 and issued Exhibits P-6 to P-9 certifying
the injuries. Exhibits P-6 to P-9 revealed that PW-{ suffered
one grievous injury, PW-2 suffered one cut injury on the back          C
apart from one abrasion, PW-3 suffered two simple injuries and
PW-4 suffered six cut injuries of which 1 to 3 were simple and
4 to 6 were grievous. One of the injuries suffered by PW-4
resulted in severance of her right hand ring finger. When such
extensive injuries were sustained by the injured eye witr.iesses,
it is too late in the day for the Appellant to contend and for the     D
Court to accept that only one knife was used and the placement
of the other three knives could not have been relied upon. The
trial Court as well as the High Court rightly rejected the above
submissions as such overwhelming evidence was available on
record to support the case of the prosecution as regards the           E
use of multiple weapons in the crime committed by the
Appellants.

      19. Once the said contention of the Appellants is rejected,
the other co1 ntentions, namely, that there was no scope to            F
invoke Sections 109 and 149, IPC would also fall to the ground.
If that is the outcome of the above discussion, there is no scope
to find fault with the ultimate conclusion of the trial court having
convicted the Appellants for the offences found proved against
them for which the sentence came to be imposed. We,                    G
therefore, do not find any substance in the submission made
on behalf of the Appellants to hold that only Section 304 Part
II, IPC can be applied and a lesser punishment should be
imposed. Having regard to the extensive use of the weapons
by the accused in the process of killing of the deceased and
                                                                       H
    992        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2014] 7 S.C.R.


A the inflicting of the injuries on PWs-1 to 4, we do not find any
  scope to show any concession in the matter of punishment and
  consequently the said submission stands rejected. In the light
  of our above conclusion, we do not find any scope to refer to
  any of the decisions relied upon for reduction of sentence.
B
        20. As far as the submission made by Mr. K.T.S. Tulsi,
  learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the Appellant in Criminal
  Appeal No.1410 of 2011 who was A-1 before the trial Court
  and as rightly contended by learned Senior Counsel, we do find
   support in the records placed before us wherein in the reply
C filed on behalf of the State to the application filed for filing
   additional documents, it is stated as under in paragraph (vi):

          "The High Court observed that as per the contentions of
          the petitioner, he was aged 17 years and 9 months at the
D         time of commission of the offence. It is pertinent to mention
          here that the High Court correctly applied the provisions
          of the 1986 Act in the present case, thereby leading to the
          finding that since the petitioner has attained the age of 17
          years and 9 months on the date of commission of the
E         offence, hence he was not a juvenile as per the provisions
          of the Act of 1986."

        21. Once, therefore, it is shown that the Appellant in
   Criminal Appeal No.1410 of 2011, who was A-1, was only 17
F years and 9 months on the date of the occurrence, the decision
   reported in Ajay Kumar v. State of Madhya Pradesh (supra)
   applies wherein in the similar circumstances it was held as
  ·under:

            "6. Rule 98 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection
G         , of Children) Rules, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as "the
            Juvenile Justice Rules, 2007") provides the procedure as
            to how a case of a juvenile who is in conflict with law should
            be disposed of. The same reads as follows:

                  "98. Disposed off cases of juveniles in conflict
H
 HAKKIM v. STATE REP. BY DY. SPOT. OF POLICE 993
   [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.]

            with Jaw- The State Government or as the case A
            may be the Board may, either suo motu or on an
            application made for the purpose, review the case
            of a person or a juvenile in conflict with law,
            determine his juvenility in terms of the provisions
            contained in the Act and Rule 12 of these Rules B
            and pass an appropriate order in the interest of the
            juvenile in conflict with law under Section 64 of the·
            Act, for the immediate release of the juvenile in
            conflict with law whose period of detention or
            imprisonment has exceeded the maximum period            c
            provided in Section 15 of the said Act.

    7. In the light of the aforesaid provisions, the maximum
    period for which a juvenile could be kept in a special home
    is for three years. In the instant case, we are informed that
    the appellant who is proved to be a juvenile has undergone      D
    deterit_ion for a period of about approximately 14 years. In
    that view of the matter, since the appellant herein was a
    minor on the date of commission of the offence and has
    already undergone more than the maximum period of
    detention as provided for under Section 15 of the Juvenile      E
    Justice Act, by following the provisions of Rule 98 of the
    Juvenile Justice Rules, 2007 read Section 15 of the
    Juvenile Justice Act, we allow the appeal with a direction
    that the appellant be released forthwith."
                                                                    F
      22. Having regard to the said legal position, the very same
consequences set out in the said decision should apply to the
case of the Appellant in Criminal Appeal No.1410 of 2011 who
has already suffered more than the maximum period of
detention as provided under the Juvenile.Justice Act. The said      G
appellant was enlarged on bail by this Court's order dated
18.07 .2011. Therefore, while confirming his conviction as per
the judgment impugned in this appeal, we hold that he is entitled
for the benefit of the provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act and
the sentence already undergone by him shall be sufficient for
    994          SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2014] 7 S.C.R.


A   the above conviction. Therefore, he shall not be detained any
    more in this case unless his detention is warranted in any other
    case. Criminal appeal No. 1410 stand disposed of on the
    above terms.

B        23. The appeals filed by the other Appellants in Criminal
    Appeal No.567 of 2012 by A-4 and Criminal Appeal No.568
    of 2012 by A-2 and A-3 stand dismissed.

    Nidhi Jain                                    Appeals disposed of.