Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
SIDDHARTH, AVNISH SAXENA
Kanhaiya – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. hearing and procedural background. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. initial overview and background of the case. (Para 3) |
| 3. applications for declaring minors. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 4. review of trial court judgments on minors' ages. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 5. age references and trial acknowledgments. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 6. detailing u.p. children act provisions. (Para 11 , 12) |
| 7. considerations for sentencing youthful offenders. (Para 18 , 38) |
| 8. factual details of the incident. (Para 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 9. assessment of witness reliability and evidence. (Para 25 , 26 , 27) |
| 10. role and implication of accused family members. (Para 35 , 36) |
| 11. final judgment and directives. (Para 41 , 42) |
JUDGMENT :
Avnish Saxena, J.
1. Heard Sri Kalpnath, learned counsel for the surviving appellant nos. 4 and 5, Mrs. Manju Thakur, learned AGA-1st for the State and perused the record.
2. This criminal appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 31st July, 1984 passed by Special Judge, Varanasi in Sessions Trial No. 240 of 1982, State Vs. Kanhaiya and others , arose out of case crime no. 203 of 1982, P.S. Bhelupur, District Varanasi, whereby the five appellants have been convicted for committing the
The court ruled that minors involved in crimes must be treated as youthful offenders, requiring specific sentencing measures, differing from adult sentencing norms.
The plea of juvenility can be raised at any stage, including appeal, and must be considered under the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, allowing for modification of sentence based on age.
The court established that in cases of juvenility, the benefit of the doubt should favor the accused, and direct evidence from the victim is paramount in determining the facts.
An individual assessed to be a juvenile at the time of offence must not be tried as an adult, with their age determination being essential for proper legal proceedings.
Juveniles must not face imprisonment beyond three years for heinous crimes, as established by the Juvenile Justice Act, despite conviction under IPC.
(1) Juvenile accused – Medical opinion based on Bone Ossification Test, is not entirely accurate – In a case of juvenility where two views are possible, liberal approach should be undertaken.(2) Bene....
Point of Law : It is well settled principle that the claim of juvenility can be raised at any stage including the appellate stage.
(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....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
