G.S. Sistani, J. (Oral):--

1. The petitioner herein was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge vide judgment dated 21.4.2011 and sentenced to undergo RI for 7 years and to pay fine of Rs. 3000/- in default thereof two months SI for the offence u/s. 394/397 IPC.

2. The unexpired portion of sentence of the petitioner as on 27.11.2013 is 6 months and 24 days. The petitioner claims that he was a juvenile on the date of incident and thus he could not have been awarded sentence for more than three years as per section 15 (g) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000.

3. In response to the notice issued in this petition, the State has filed a Status report. As per the Status report, the plea of juvenility was not raised by the petitioner during the trial or during the hearing of the appeal. It is also submitted that on receipt of the writ petition enquiries was made from the school authorities; and as per the school record the petitioner was admitted in the school on 16.7.2002 in the 5th standard and at that time his parents had verbally recorded his date of birth as 10.2.1993. No affidavit in respect of the date of birth was given; and his mother was also unable to give his precise date of birth.

4. It is no longer res integra that a plea of juvenility can be raised at any stage, even after all the remedies have been exhausted.

5. In a recent decision rendered by the Supreme Court of India in the case of Abuzar Hossain Alias Gulam Hossain v. State of West Bengal, reported at (2012) 10 SCC 489, it has been held that the claim of juvenility can be raised at any stage irrespective of the delay in raising the same. The Supreme Court has further held that this plea can be raised even in appeal if such a claim was not pressed before the trial court and in fact can be raised even after disposal of the case. Framing guidelines in the case of Abuzar Hossain (supra) it has been held that for making a claim with regard to juvenility, after conviction, the claimant must produce some material which may, prima facie, satisfy the Court that an inquiry is necessary and for which the initial burden has to be discharged by the person, who has made such a claim. While no exhaustive list can be prepared as to the nature of material, which would be sufficient to raise such a plea, but the documents, which find mentioned in Rules 12(3)(a)(i) to (iii), would be sufficient to call for an enquiry by the Court.

6. Rule 12 (3) (a) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 reads as under:

“(3) In every case concerning a child or juvenile in conflict with law, the age determination inquiry shall be conducted by the Court or the Board, as the case may be, the Committee by seeking evidence by obtaining –

(a) (i) the matriculation or equivalent certificates, if available; and in absence whereof;

(ii) the date of birth certificate from the school (other than a play school) first attended; and in the absence whereof;

(iii) the birth certificate given by a corporation or a municipal authority or a panchayat;”

7. Section 2 (k) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 as amended upto date defines a juvenile as -- juvenile or child means a person, who has not completed 18 years of age”.

8. In the case of Abuzar Hossain (Supra) a separate concurring judgment, and more particularly with regard to the propositions stated in paragraph 39.4 of the judgment, was delivered by Justice T.S. Thakur. Paragraph 39.4 of the judgment reads as under:

“39.4 An affidavit of the claimant or any of the parents or a sibling or a relative in support of the claim of juvenility raised for the first time in appeal or revision or before this Court during the pendency of the matter or after disposal of the case shall not be sufficient justifying an enquiry to determine the age of such person unless the circumstances of the case are so glaring that satisfy the judicial conscience of the court to order an enquiry into determin

Click Here to Read the rest of this document