Supplication of Juvenility May Be Raised Before Any Court and It Shall Be Recognised at Any Stage, Even After Final Disposal of the Case: Supreme Court
Case title: Rahul Kumar Yadav vs The State Of Bihar
Case no.: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 177 OF 2018
Dated on: 25th April 2024
Quorum: Justice Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Mehta
FACTS OF THE CASE
The appellant and a co-accused were tried in sessions trial for the offence under section 302 and 394 of the IPC (Indian Penal Code) 1860, and 27(2) 0f the Arms act, 1959. The trail court convicted them, sentencing them to death for the Section 302 Charge. They filed an appeal to the Patna High court, resulting in a split opinion from the division bench. One judge found the appeal without merit, while the other believed they should be acquitted due to doubt. The matter was then referred to the third bench, who dismissed the appeal but commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment.
Before the case committed, the appellant claimed juvenile status under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, based on his horoscope. However this claim was rejected both by the chief judicial Magistrate and later by the trial court. When the matter was committed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate to the trail court, a fresh petition under section 7-A of the JJ Act, 2000 was filed by the appellant claiming himself to be a juvenile in conflict with law was rejected vide order dated 28.11.2011 considering the fact that earlier the Chief Judicial Magistrate has rejected a similar applications preferred by the appellant.
CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT
The learned ASG, his submitted that the plea made on behalf of the appellant in the trail court claiming that he was a Juvenile on that date of the incident was dismissed in an absolutely perfunctory manner without holding a proper inquiry and simply on the ground that the same prayer had been turned down by the learned chief Judicial Magistrate earlier Even in the appeal before High Court, a pertinent Plea was raised on behalf of the appellant that he was a juvenile on the date of the incident and thus the proceeding undertaken against him in the trail court were vitiated.
CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS
The respondent counsel submitted that shri Rauf Rahim and urged that the highly belated plea of juvenility on behalf of the appellant should not be entertained by this court. We have given our thoughtful considerations to the submission advanced on behalf of the appellant and have also gone through the material available on record. The pendency of the appeal before the Patna High court, the Juvenile Justice Act,2000 hereinafter being referred to as the JJ act 2015 had come into force which provides a comprehensive mechanism to consider the prayer of juvenility raised on behalf of an accused claiming to be a child on the date of the commission of the offence.
LEGAL PROVISIONS
Section 302 of IPC 1860: prescribes the punishment for murder whoever commits murder shall be punished with death or imprisonment for life, and shall liable to fine
Section 394 of IPC 1860: Any person, in committing or attempting to commit robbery voluntarily causes hurt shall punished with imprisonment for life or with rigorous imprisonment for term which may extend to ten years
Section 27(2) of The Arms Act 1959: Whoever uses any prohibited arms or prohibited ammunition in contravention of section 7 shall be punishable with imprisonment for life and shall also liable to fine.
Section 366 of The code of criminal procedure 1973: when the court of session passes a sentence of death, the proceeding shall be submitted to the High court, and the sentences shall not be executed unless it is confirmed by the High Court.
Section 7-A of Juvenile Justice (care and protection of children Act,2000): Whenever a claim of juvenility is raised before any court or a court is of the opinion that an accused person was juvenile on the date of commission of the offence the court shall make an inquiry, take such evidence as may be necessary and it passed to JJ board for passing appropriate order.
COURT’S ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT
In the present case, the appellant file an application at the earliest point of the time raising the claim of juvenility based on horoscope before the learned chief judicial magistrate. The said application was rejected. However, before the trail court, the birth certificate was presented and plea for determination of age was raised learned trial court rejected the said prayer by observing that even though the birth certificate was issued in the year of 1995, the same was not presented along with application filed earlier before the learned chief judicial magistrate. A claim of juvenility may be raised at any stage even after the final disposal of the case the delay in raising the claim of juvenility cannot be a ground for rejection of such claim. We hear by direct that the learned first additional sessions judge it shall conduct a through inquiry to determine the age/date of birth of the appellant in accordance with the procedure provided under the JJ act, 2015 and the rules frame under. We find that proper inquiry in accordance with the provisions of the JJ Act, 2000 or the JJ Act, 2015. The enquiry shall be completed within 12 weeks from today. The inquiry report shall be forwarded to this court and copy shall also be provided to the accused and prosecution. The matter shall be listed for hearing in the third week of august 2024.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Judgement Reviewed by – HARIRAGHAVA JP
Click here to read the judgement
