Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
N.V. RAMANA, MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, INDIRA BANERJEE, JJ.
RAJU – APPELLANT
Versus
THE STATE OF HARYANA – RESPONDENT
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1175 OF 2014
Decided on : 22-02-2019
(2009) 13 SCC 211; (2010) 6 SCC 669; (2011) 2 SCC 224; (2013) 11 SCC 193 – Relied upon
(b) Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 – Sections 7A r/w Rule 12, Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 – High Court dismissing plea of juvenility – Registrar (Judicial) of Supreme Court, under direction by the Court determining appellant’s age as 16 years, 2 months and 2 days and accordingly holding appellant to be a juvenile on the date of occurrence – Held enquiry by High Court not according to provisions of the Act and the Rules – Further held that enquiry by Registrar (Judicial) was according to law. (Para 15, 16)
(c) Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 – Sections 7A r/w Rule 12, Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 – State raising issue of precedence of Registrar’s report over judgment of High Court – Registrar being a district Judge, Supreme Court can always take his assistance for enquiry u/s 7A and rule 12 – However, such enquiry by itself will not prevail over contrary opinion of High Court – Registrar’s report on affirmation by the Court, becoming report of the Court, must prevail upon that of the High Court. (Para 17)
(2010) 5 SCC 344 – Relied upon
(2009) 16 SCC 256; (2010) 13 SCC 523 – Referred
(d) Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 – Sections 7A r/w Rule 12, Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 – Inquiry conducted by Registrar (Judicial) affirmed by the Court amounts to an inquiry conducted by the Court itself – Conclusive proof of the age of the Appellant – Appellant satisfying requirement of Sections 2(k) and 2(l) – Held, the Act is applicable to the appellant in light of section 7A and section 20. (Para 24)
Facts of the case:
An FIR was lodged against the Appellant Raju s/o Rajendar Singh, and two other persons, viz. Raju s/o Bhim and Raja @ Raj Kumar s/o Makhsi, alleging that the three persons had intercepted the prosecutrix when she was passing by some fields along with her one year old brother and had taken her to a field nearby, whereupon Raju s/o Bhim and Raja @ Raj Kumar s/o Makhsi engaged in the gang-rape of the prosecutrix, while the Appellant stood outside the field. The prosecutrix was aged fifteen years at the time of the incident, which occurred on 14.09.2000. The three accused were convicted for the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(g) of the IPC, and sentenced to 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/-, and further two months’ rigorous imprisonment in default of payment of fine.
The Appellant, inter alia, raised the defence before the High Court that he was aged less than 18 years at the time of commission of the offence, i.e. 14.09.2000, and hence was entitled to the benefit of the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. The High Court, however, rejected such contention and affirmed the conviction of the three accused, including the Appellant.
Finding of the Court:
Appellant was a juvenile on the date of the offence.
Result: Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT
MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, J.
This appeal is directed against the final judgment and order dated 24.08.2011 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal No. 1830-SB of 2003, by which the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Appellant herein challenging the judgment of conviction under Section 376(2)(g) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) dated 08.11.2002 and order of sentence dated 11.11.2002 rendered by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon, in Sessions Case No. 5/2001.
2. The brief facts leading to the instant appeal are that an FIR was lodged against the Appellant Raju s/o Rajendar Singh, and two other persons, viz. Raju s/o Bhim and Raja @ Raj Kumar s/o Makhsi, alleging that the three persons had intercepted the prosecutrix when she was passing by some fields along with her one year old brother and had taken her to a field nearby, whereupon Raju s/o Bhim and Raja @ Raj Kumar s/o Makhsi engaged in the gang-rape of the prosecutrix, while the Appellant stood outside the field. The prosecutrix was aged fifteen years at the time of the incident, which occurred on 14.09.2000. The three accused were convicted for the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(g) of the IPC, and sentenced to 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/-, and further two months’ rigorous imprisonment in default of payment of fine. Aggrieved by the same, the three accused appealed to the High Court.
3. The Appellant, inter alia, raised the defence before the High Court that he was aged less than 18 years at the time of commission of the offence, i.e. 14.09.2000, and hence was entitled to the benefit of the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (in short, “the 2000 Act”). The High Court, however, rejected such contention and affirmed the conviction of the three accused, including the Appellant.
4. Aggrieved by the above judgment, the Appellant filed the instant appeal, inter alia raising the plea of juvenility again. The Appellant relied upon a transfer certificate issued in his favour by the Dayanand Middle School, Sohna, Gurgaon which showed his date of birth to be 12.07.1984. He also relied upon a certificate issued by the Government Senior Secondary School (Boys), Sohna which showed his date of birth to be the same. It was submitted by the Appellant before this Court that the certificates in question prima facie entitled him to claim the conduct of an inquiry in terms of Section 7A of the 2000 Act. The Appellant referred to the decisions of this Court in Murari Thakur v. State of Bihar, (2009) 16 SCC 256, Dharambir v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2010) 5 SCC 344, and Jitendra Singh @ Babboo Singh v. State of U.P., (2010) 13 SCC 523.
5. Keeping in mind such circumstances and the certificates relied upon, this Court vide order dated 09.08.2012 directed the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court to conduct an inquiry in respect of the age of the Appellant in terms of Section 7A of the 2000 Act read with the rules framed thereunder, and to submit a report to this Court within four months from the order.
6. This Court received such report on 07.01.2013, which determined that the age of the Appellant was 16 years, 2 months and 2 days at the time of commission of the offence and that he was thus a juvenile at that time. Thereafter, arguments were heard and judgement reserved. However, subsequently, the State raised the argument that the Court had not looked into the question of whether the plea of juvenility as decided by the Registry of this Court should be given precedence over the view of the High Court. By an order dated 25.04.2014, this Court directed that the appeal be heard further. Shri Siddhartha Dave was subsequently appointed as amicus curiae to assist the Court.
7. It was submitted by the learned amicus curiae that the learned Registrar (Judicial) of this Court had,
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
