IMPORTANT POINT
Plea of juvenility may be raised before any Court and it shall be recognised at any stage, even after final disposal of case – Plea of juvenility, even if not taken before trial Court or High Court, can be raised before Supreme Court.

ORDER :

Criminal Appeal No. 177 of 2018

1. This appeal is preferred by the appellant-Rahul Kumar Yadav assailing the judgments dated 30th April, 2014 and 29th June, 2017 passed by the learned Division Bench of Patna High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 518 of 2013.

2. The appellant and the co-accused were tried by the learned first Additional Sessions Judge, Darbhanga (hereinafter being referred to as the ‘trial Court’) in Sessions Trial No. 441 of 2011 for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 394 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter being referred to as ‘IPC’) and Section 27 (2) of the Arms Act, 1959. The trial Court, vide judgment dated 9th April, 2013, convicted the appellant and the co-accused for the offences stated above and qua the charge under Section 302 IPC, awarded death sentence to them.

3. The accused assailed the said judgment by filing an appeal before the Patna High Court. A reference under Section 366 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was also made by the trial Court for confirmation of the death sentence. The learned Judges of the Division Bench of the Patna High Court, gave a split opinion vide judgment dated 30th April, 2014 with one of the learned judges opining that the appeal was devoid of merit and other learned judge opining that the appeal deserves to be allowed and the accused were entitled to be acquitted by giving them the benefit of doubt. In view of the difference of opinion between the learned Judges of the Division Bench, the matter was referred to the third learned Single Judge of the Patna High Court who dismissed the appeal vide judgment dated 29th June, 2017 but commuted the death sentence awarded to the appellant and the co-accused to life imprisonment.

4. It may be stated here that even before the case was committed, the appellant herein had moved an application under Section 7-A of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (hereinafter, being referred to as JJ Act, 2000) before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate claiming that he was a juvenile as on the date of the incident, i.e. 27th July, 2011. In the said application, reliance was placed by the appellant on his own horoscope. However, the Chief Judicial Magistrate proceeded to reject the said application.

5. When the matter was committed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate to the trial 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 which was rejected vide order dated 28th November, 2011 considering the fact that earlier the Chief Judicial Magistrate had rejected a similar application preferred by the appellant.

6. While addressing the Court in this appeal, Shri Rauf Rahim, learned senior counsel representing the appellant, at the outset, submitted that the plea made on behalf of the appellant in the trial Court claiming that he was a juvenile on the date of the incident was dismissed in an absolutely perfunctory manner without holding proper inquiry and simply on the ground that the same prayer had been turned down by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate earlier.

7. Even in the appeal before the 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 proceedings undertaken against him in the trial Court were vitiated. However, the High Court also failed to advert to the said prayer. He thus urged that an inquiry should be directed to determine the age of the appellant so as to decide his plea of juvenility as per law.

8. Per contra, Shri Azmat Hayat Amanullah, learned counsel for the State opposed the submissions of Shri Rauf Rahim and urged that the highly belated plea of juvenility raised on behalf of the appellant should not be entertained by this Court.

9. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellant and have also gone through the material available on record.

10. Indisputably,