Full Text
CRL.A. 576/2017
MANOJ ..... Appellant
Through: Ms Aishwarya Rao, Advocate (DHCLSC).
Through: Ms Kusum Dhalla, APP for State.
JUDGMENT
1. The appeal has been taken up on mentioning by the learned counsel appearing for the parties.
2. Ms Rao, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant fairly points out that the age of the appellant, as reflected in the nominal roll, was incorrect and the same ought to have been 26 years and not 23 years, and submits that the judgment dated 03.02.2020 be, accordingly, rectified.
3. She further submits that the said rectification would make no material difference to the judgment, as her contention that the appellant was of a young age had been accepted by the Court.
4. Paragraph 25 of the judgement dated 03.02.2020 reads as under: “25. The nominal roll of the appellant dated 09.07.2019 reflects that the appellant’s age is 23 years. Thus, the appellant would be barely seventeen years old on the date of the incident. However, the appellant did not plead that he was a minor before the Trial Court nor was it urged 2020:DHC:1342 before this Court. However, the learned counsel for the appellant had earnestly contended that the appellant was very young at the time of the incident and this should be considered as one of the mitigating factors in awarding the sentence.”
5. This Court had noted the age of the appellant, as appearing in the nominal roll, and had found merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant was of a young age, at the time of incident. No contention that the appellant was a minor at the time of the incident was advanced. The Court had merely noted the appellant’s age as reflected in the nominal roll, while accepting that the appellant was young at the time of the incident.
6. It has now been pointed out that the age of the appellant as reflected in the nominal roll is incorrect, and had been inadvertently mentioned as 23 years instead of 26 years. Accordingly, paragraph 25 of the judgement dated 03.02.2020 is modified to read as under:- “ 25. The nominal roll of the appellant dated 09.07.2019 reflects the appellant’s age as 23 years. However, it is pointed out that the same is erroneous and the age of the appellant should have been reflected as 26 years. However, learned counsel appearing for the appellant contends that the appellant was very young at the time of the incident and this should be considered as one of the mitigating factors in awarding the sentence.”
7. The Registry is directed to upload a copy of the said judgment, as so modified, on this Court’s website.
VIBHU BAKHRU, J FEBRUARY 25, 2020