Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(SC) 278

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. M. JOSEPH, ANIRUDDHA BOSE, HRISHIKESH ROY, JJ.
NARAYAN CHETANRAM CHAUDHARY - APPLICANT(S)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA - RESPONDENT(S)
Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 157334 Of 2018 In Review Petition (Criminal) Nos. 1139-1140 Of 2000 In Criminal Appeal Nos. 25-26 Of 2000
Decided On : 27-03-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. R.Basant, Sr.Adv., Mr. Vishnu P., Adv., Ms. Trisha Chandran, Adv., Ms. Shreya Rastogi, Adv., Mr. Shadan Farasat, AOR
For the Respondent: Mr. Sachin Patil, Adv., Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv., Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR, Mr. Bharat Bagla, Adv., Mr. Sourav Singh, Adv., Mr. Geo Joseph, Adv., Mr. Risvi Muhammed, Adv., Mr. Durgesh Gupta, Adv., Mr. Hrishikesh Chitaley, Adv., Mr. Vijay Kari Singh, Adv., Mr. Rajat Joseph, AOR

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Claim of juvenility may be raised before any Court which shall be recognised at any stage even after final disposal of case.
(2) Decision against determination of juvenility ought not to be taken solely for reason that offence involved is heinous or grave.
(3) Claim of juvenility of based on date of birth in school certificate would not vary based on definitions of juvenile, “juvenile in conflict with law” or “child in conflict with law” under 1986 Act, 2000 Act or 2015 Act.

Headnote:
(A) Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 – Section 9(2) – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302, 342, 397, 449 read with 120B and 34 – Murder, wrongful restraint, dacoity, house trespass and conspiracy – Common intention – Death sentence – Plea of juvenility – Claim of juvenility may be raised before any Court which shall be recognised at any stage even after final disposal of case – On juvenility plea, if a writ petition is dismissed in limine, such order would not foreclose option of accused (or a convict) to make plea for juvenility under sub-section (2) of Section 9 of 2015 Act – Claimant for juvenility has to establish his case – But a death row convict in prison for over 28 years would be under severe limitations in retracing his school records and other forms of age proof – In case claimant is found to be juvenile, Court has to refer the matter to Board for passing appropriate order and in such a situation, sentence passed by Court shall have no effect – Applicant’s plea cannot be rejected on the ground of being belated claim. (Paras 19, 20, 21, 22 and 25)
(B) Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 – Sections 94 and 103 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302, 342, 397, 449 read with 120B and 34 – Murder, wrongful restraint, dacoity, house trespass and conspiracy – Common intention – Death sentence – Plea of juvenility – Presumption and determination of age – Mandate of following summons procedure has not been prescribed so far as inquiry which ought to be conducted by Court – Manner in which evidence could be taken has not been mandated – Manner in which Court shall conduct such inquiry has also not been specifically prescribed – Inquiring Judge had marked documents filed before him as exhibits – Inquiring Judge examined each of documents upon ascertaining stand of DGP and also Advocate representing applicant – No flaw in procedure which has been adopted by Inquiring Judge – School Admission Register is of sufficient vintage and date of birth recorded therein was not a fabricated entry – Claim of juvenility of applicant based on his date of birth in school certificate would not vary based on definitions of juvenile, “juvenile in conflict with law” or “child in conflict with law” under 1986 Act, 2000 Act or 2015 Act – Decision against determination of juvenility ought not to be taken solely for reason that offence involved is heinous or grave – Applicant was a child/juvenile on the date of commission of offence – He has already served more than 3 years of incarceration and under law as it prevailed at the time of commission of offence as also under 2015 Act and he cannot be subjected to capital punishment – He shall be set free forthwith from Correctional Home. (Paras 27, 28, 34, 40, 42 and 43)
Facts of the case:
This is an application under Section 9(2) of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 requesting this Court to hold that applicant, who is a convict for committing offences under Sections 302, 342, 397, 449 read with 120B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was a juvenile on the date of commission of the offence. Simultaneous prayer of applicant is for his release from custody on the ground of having served more than the maximum punishment permissible under the Act. Applicant has been sentenced to death by Additional Sessions Judge, Pune by a judgment and order dated 19th February 1998 and 23rd February 1998 respectively.
Findings of Court:
Order sentencing him to death passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune in Sessions Case No. 462 of 1994 and subsequently confirmed by the High Court and by this Court would stand invalidated by operation of law. He shall be set free forthwith from the correctional home in which he remains imprisoned, as he has suffered imprisonment for more than 28 years, having regard to the provisions of Section 18 of 2015 Act.
Result : Application allowed.

Judgement Key Points

The margin of error in the ossification test refers to the range within which the estimated age of an individual may vary due to biological variability and measurement limitations. This margin acknowledges that the test's results are not perfectly precise and can be influenced by individual differences in bone development and other factors. Typically, the margin of error is expressed as a range of years, indicating that the actual age could be slightly younger or older than the estimated age provided by the test (!) . Recognizing this variability is crucial in legal contexts, especially when age determination impacts juvenile or adult status, as it ensures that the results are interpreted with appropriate caution and in conjunction with other evidence. The margin of error thus serves as a safeguard against over-reliance on the test's findings as definitive proof of age, emphasizing the need for a holistic assessment that considers all relevant factors (!) .

JUDGMENT :

ANIRUDDHA BOSE, J.

This is an application under Section 9(2) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (“2015 Act”) requesting this Court to hold that the applicant, who is a convict for committing offences under Sections 302, 342, 397, 449 read with 120B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“1860 Code”) was a juvenile on the date of commission of the offence. Simultaneous prayer of the applicant is for his release from custody on the ground of having served more than the maximum punishment permissible under the Act. The applicant has been sentenced to death by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune by a judgment and order dated 19th February 1998 and 23rd February 1998 respectively. This application has been taken out in connection with a petition for review of the order by which his conviction and sentence was sustained by this Court after confirmation by the High Court. The review petition of the applicant was also dismissed on 24th November 2000. The applicant, along with two other offenders (Jitu and Raju) were tried for commission of offences under the aforesaid provisions of the 1860 Code. The applicant had not raised the plea of juvenility at the trial or the appellate stage. In the Trial Court, said Raju had turned approver and was tendered pardon. Both the judgment of conviction and order of sentence were confirmed by the High Court on 22nd July 1999 in the appeal of the applicant as also in the confirmation proceeding. The appeal against the judgment of conviction and order of death sentence made by the applicant was dismissed by this Court on 5th September 2000. The offence of the applicant is no doubt, gruesome in nature. On 26th August 1994, as per the prosecution case sustained by all the judicial fora including this Court, the applicant alongwith the two other accomplices had committed murder of five women, (one of whom was pregnant) and two children. The offence took place at Pune in the State of Maharashtra. The applicant was arrested on 5th September 1994 from his home village and is in detention for more than 28 years.

2. Though the offence was committed at Pune, the applicant claims to hail from Jalabsar, in Shri Dungargarh tehsil, at present in Bikaner district, Rajasthan. It is from there he was arrested. He was tried as Narayan Chetanram Chaudhary. His plea before us is that his actual name is Niranaram. In the Inquiry Report, which we shall deal with later in this judgment, there is observation to the effect that people in Pune, Maharashtra might find it difficult to pronounce Niranaram and there is possibility of pronunciation mistake to call “Niranaram” as “Narayan” in Pune. The said tehsil was earlier in the district of Churu but in the year 2001, it came within the Bikaner district. Date of occurrence of the offence is 26th August 1994 and the chargesheet submitted against the applicant showed his age to be about 20 years at the time of commission of the offence. The applicant’s claim of juvenility is primarily based on a “certificate” of date of birth issued on 30th January 2019, in the name of Niranaram, son of Chetanram. The said certificate has been issued by the Pradhanacharya (Headmaster), Rajakiya Adarsh Uccha Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Jalabsar, Shri Dungargarh. In the said document, it is recorded that Niranaram was born on 1st February 1982. In a “transfer certificate” by the same authority issued on 15th August 2001, it is reflected that he had joined the school in Class First on 1st April 1986 vide admission number 568 and left from Class Third (Passed) on 15th May 1989.

By the date of birth reflected in these certificates, the age of the applicant on the date of commission of offence would have been 12 years and 6 months. The applicant, as we have already indicated, was tried as Narayan, not Niranaram. Moreover, in certain other documents Niranaram’s age i