IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Plea of juvenility can be raised before any Court and it shall be recognized at any stage, even after final disposal of case.
(2) Rape and disappearance of evidence – Merits of conviction could be tested and conviction which was recorded cannot be held to be vitiated in law merely because inquiry was not conducted by JJB.

JUDGMENT

The term “Juvenile” has been originated from the Latin word “Junvenilis”. It means someone young & immature. It can be referred to as the early stage of development, youthfulness or of maturity. A Juvenile is a child who has not reached the age at which they may be held accountable for their criminal activities in the same way that an adult can. When referring to a young criminal offender, the term “Juvenile” is used. As a result, a Juvenile is a child who is accused of doing certain acts or omissions that are illegal and have been classified as such by penal laws.

2. In our country, child crime is classified as a juvenile crime. i.e., delinquent acts committed by children under a specified age are classified as child crimes.

3. Whether any Juvenile below the age of 16 years can be sentenced to undergo imprisonment like an adult criminal? Whether a child criminal who has not claimed himself as “Juvenile” during the course of trial can be convicted and sentenced to undergo sentence with other adult criminals?

4. Here in the instant case the appellant was tried as an accused of committing offence of rape and after trial he was found guilty and sentenced to undergo seven years imprisonment. He never took the plea that he was less than 13 years of age, at the time of commission of offence, during the course of trial and at the time of passing of the judgment. Now, for the first time, he is claiming himself as a “child” below the age of 13 years, at the time of commission of offence and is seeking the benefit of being Juvenile, for the first time, at the stage of final hearing of this appeal, i.e. after 33 years of his conviction and sentence. It is in this background, the issue raised now, after a lapse of more than three decades, is required to be considered and decided by this Court.

Factual Matrix:

5. Challenge in this appeal is made to the impugned judgment dated 31.07.1991/01.08.1991 passed by the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Sawai Madhopur in Sessions Case No.36/1990, by which the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 376 IPC and has been sentenced to undergo seven years rigorous imprisonment.

6. The relevant facts, very briefly stated, are that on 06.12.1989, an FIR (Ex.P-2) was registered with the Police Station Rawanjna Doongar, District Sawai Madhopur, whereby allegations were levelled against the appellant by the complainant Jagannath that the appellant attempted to commit rape with the prosecutrix ‘R’ in the field. After investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the appellant under Section 376 IPC and under Section 201 IPC against the co-accused Smt. Sunder, as she washed the cloths of the prosecutrix ‘R’, after the occurrence in order to destroy the evidence.

7. Charges were framed under Sections 376 and 201 IPC against the appellant and the co-accused Smt. Sunder, respectively. Both of them denied the charges and claimed trial. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as 9 witnesses in support of its case. Thereafter, explanation of the accused persons was recorded under Section 313 CrPC wherein they denied their participation in the incident and submitted that due to enmity, they have been falsely implicated in the present case. But in defence, no evidence was produced by them. After completion of trial, the coaccused Smt. Sunder was acquitted of the charge under Section 201 IPC but the appellant was convicted and sentenced, as stated above, vide impugned judgment dated 31.07.1991/01.08.1991.

Submissions on behalf of the Appellant:-

8. Counsel for the appellant submits that as per the allegations levelled by the prosecutrix ‘R’ (PW-9), the appellant committed rape upon her. Counsel submits that the eye-witness of the incident Bhuli (PW-4) has not supported the version of prosecution and she has been declared hostile. Counsel submits that the allegations of rape are not corroborated by the medical evidence and even then, the appellant has been h