SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Jhk) 1178

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, ARUN KUMAR RAI, JJ.
Rajan Oraon, S/o. Udesh Oraon - Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand - Respondent
Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 565 of 2020 With I.A. No. 11378 of 2024
Decided On : 29-04-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Binod Singh.
For the Respondent: Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, APP.

Timely claims of juvenility under the Juvenile Justice Act must be substantiated with evidence during trial; late submissions impede mental capacity assessments.

Headnote:(A) Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 - Sections 9(2) and 9(3) - Criminal appeal against conviction - The plea of juvenility raised after trial was not considered timely as the appellant was close to 18 years at the time of the crime. The court emphasized that mental capability assessments for juveniles should be conducted promptly during initial stages. (Paras 1, 26, 56, 59)

(B) Legal principle of timely plea - A claim of juvenility can be raised at any stage, however, it must be substantiated with documents submitted during the early trial stages. (Paras 27, 39.1-39.5)

Facts of the case:
The appellant was convicted for multiple offenses including rape, with the plea of juvenility being raised only at the appellate stage based on a Matriculation Certificate noting the appellant's birth date as 20.01.2002. Conviction was based on testimonies of 21 witnesses. (Paras 4, 16)

Findings of Court:
The court held that due to the delay in raising the juvenility plea, a proper assessment of the appellant's mental and physical capacity could not be conducted, thereby denying the request for the plea of juvenility at this stage. (Paras 56, 59)

Issues: The Court addressed whether the appellant could be declared as a juvenile at the time of the alleged crime when the plea was first raised post-conviction.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that raising the plea of juvenility at the appellate stage without timely documentation during trial proceedings is insufficient and impractical, as mental capability assessments require immediate execution. (Paras 27, 56)

Result: Interlocutory application rejected.

Table of Content
1. case details highlight allegations of a heinous crime involving the appellant. (Para 1)
2. factual background of the alleged crime. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15)
3. arguments presented by the appellant and the prosecution. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23)
4. court's observations on juvenility and relevant legal provisions. (Para 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57)
5. court's decision to reject the interlocutory application. (Para 58 , 59)

JUDGMENT :

Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.

I.A. No. 11378 of 2024:

1. The instant interlocutory application has been filed under Section 9 (2) and9(3) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) of Children Act, 2015 before this Court to declare the appellant as juvenile/child at the time of alleged occurrence.

Factual Matrix:

2. The prosecution case is based on the written report (Ext.3) addressed to the Officer-in-charge of Kanke Police Station; Ranchi submitted by the 'victim' (name withheld) on 27.11.2019. Therein she stated that on 26.11.2019 between 5.30 to 5.45 P.M, she along with her friend Mohan Singh Bodra (P.W.17) took the ring road from BIT Mesra to NUSRL Hostel where she was to get dropped. On the way they stopped near Sangrampur Bus stand to attend nature’s call and stayed back there for some time under the shade of bus stop. In the meantime, a car in which 6 to 7 people were crammed stopped before them. They were all inebriated.

3. Furthermore, two persons on a Pulsar bike came to a halt before them. The occupants of the vehicles inquired the 'victim' and her friend as to why they were present at the bus stop. They responded that they had to go to NUSRL hostel. Upon this, few persons got down from the car and started hurling insults at the 'victim' and her friend and beating them. The accused persons addressed the two friends and stated, "You have taken up committing wrong and indulging in indecent behaviour on a regular basis and that is the reason you are sitting here." Thereafter, they started beating them again during the course of which, her spectacles fell off.

4. She further stated that they asked her to make a call to her mother. Her friend Mohan who was at that time in possession of her phone, handed it to her. She then made a call to her mother and as soon as her mother answered, one of the accused snatched her phone and held on to it. She further alleged that they attempted to persuade the accused that they were on their way to her hostel. This only seemed to make them stubborn and brash. They asked her whether they could drop her to the hostel and without waiting for a reply, they manhandled her into straddling the bike, registration number: JH-01-DQ-8951. The 'victim' and her friend screamed.

5. She further stated that two of the accused, whom she could identify by face, started threatening her that if she dared scream, she would be shot dead. The bike was driven by one person whereas another, seated behind her was holding her in place, gagging her mouth. They rode towards the road passing under the overbridge. She further submitted that the said bike halted after going some distance, perhaps because there wasn’t enough petrol. In the meantime, the rest of their party in the car joined them, two of them forcibly pushed her into the car. While one was driving towards the overbridge, another was holding her, gagging her mouth. After covering a certain distance, the car turned to the right and started going towards what looked like a secluded place.

6. After some time, the car stopped near a brick kiln where there was no one whom she could ask for help. Meanwhile the cellphone belonging to the driver began to ring, she tried to snatch the phone but failed. The said person got down from the car, locked it and called other persons asking them to come where they had parked.

7. She further alleged that she wa

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top