The main legal point established in the judgment is that while the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 allows a claim of juvenility to be raised before any court at any stage, the court's jurisdiction to entertain such a plea depends on the circumstances of each case, including whether the plea was raised before the trial or appellate court and the status of any previous legal proceedings.

ORDER :

1. Heard Mr. Vikram Deo Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Deepak Kumar, learned AC to GP-4 for the State.

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order dated 10.02.2021 passed by learned Fast Track Court-IV, Siwan in Sessions Trial No. 03 of 2008. It appears that the petitioner has been convicted under Section 364-A/34 IPC in Sessions Trial No. 03 of 2008. He has been sentenced to life. The conviction and sentence passed against him has been upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.

3. No plea of juvenility was raised either before the Juvenile Justice Board or the trial court or the Hon’ble Supreme Court till disposal of the case. It is stated that the SLP (Crl.) No. 297 of 2017 was dismissed vide order dated 14.07.2017.

4. For the first time, after about 3 years from the date of dismissal of SLP, the petitioner raised a plea of juvenility before the learned trial court. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in an another case when the petitioner was convicted for the offence under Section 364A IPC and his appeal being Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 742 of 2012 was pending before the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court, a plea of juvenility was raised in the said case and on such plea the Hon’ble Division Bench directed the learned Juvenile Justice Board to consider the plea of juvenility of the petitioner. It is submitted that after the order of the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court, a Medical Board was constituted to assess the age of the petitioner and the Medical Board assessed his age as 22-23 years on 22.08.2014, the Board assessed the age of the petitioner as 15-16 years at the time of the alleged occurrence. Such order was passed by the Board on 18.03.2015.

5. Learned counsel submits that the plea of juvenility was, however, not raised in this case either before the Hon’ble Division Bench of the Court or before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.

6. Learned counsel has drawn the attention of this Court towards the proviso to Sub-Section (2) of Section 9 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 2015’) to submit that a claim of juvenility may be raised before any Court and it shall be considered at any stage, even after disposal of the case.

7. Learned counsel has further relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Abuzar Hossain @ Gulam Hossain vs. State of West Bengal, (2012) 10 SCC 489 in which the law on this subject has been summarised by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraph ‘39’. It is submitted that the learned Fast Track Court could not appreciate the import of proviso to Sub-Section (2) of Section 9 and the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court and rejected the petition preferred on behalf of the petitioner holding that this Court has no jurisdiction to pass any order in this regard.

8. Mr. Deepak Kumar, learned AC to GP-4 for the State has opposed the present application. It is submitted that there is no quarrel with the prepositions that a plea of juvenility may be raised at any stage and even after the final disposal of the case but the question in the present case is as to whether in the present case a plea of juvenility may be raised at this stage before the Fast Track Court/Trial Court when the judgment of the learned trial court has merged with the judgment of the appellate court in Criminal Appeal and then a Special Leave Petition preferred before the Hon’ble Supreme Court against the judgment of the Hon’ble Division Bench of the High Court has already been dismissed.

9. To strengthen his submission that the learned trial court has committed no error in holding that it has no jurisdiction to entertain the application, learned counsel for the State has drawn the attention of this Court towards paragraph ‘39.1’ of the judgment in Abuzar Hossain @ Gulam Hossain (Supra). It is submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that a claim of juvenility may be raised at any sta