SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2010 Supreme(SC) 1412

MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, ANIL R.DAVE
Ajay Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State of M. P. – Respondent


JUDGMENT :

1. Leave granted.

2. The issue that is raised for consideration in this appeal is whether the appellant herein was a juvenile on the date of the commission of the offence, that is, on 17.2.1994. An issue regarding the age of the appellant and that he was a juvenile was raised before the trial Court. However, despite the fact that the said issue was raised, no categorical finding was given by the trial court in that regard.

3. The said issue was however not raised by the appellant before this Court at the time of filing of the appeal but has now been raised by filing a separate application under Section 7-A of the Juvenile Justice (Case and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Juvenile Justice Act’) claiming juvenility of the appellant on the date of the offence. It is stated in the application that his date of birth is 3.7.1978 and therefore he was aged 15 years 7 months 14 days on the date of occurrence.

4. In terms of the Juvenile Justice Act, an inquiry is to be conducted by the Court before whom such a plea is raised and the Court has to render a finding as to whether or not, the appellant was a juvenile and in case he is found to be juvenil

    Click Here to Read the rest of this document
    1
    2
    3
    4
    5
    6
    7
    8
    9
    10
    11
    SupremeToday Portrait Ad
    supreme today icon
    logo-black

    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

    qr

    Scan Me!

    India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

    For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

    whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
    whatsapp-icon Back to top