The main legal point established in the judgment is that a claim of juvenility can be raised at any stage, even after the final disposal of the case, and the delay in raising the claim cannot be a ground for rejection.

JUDGMENT :

Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, J.

In this Appeal, the appellant – Gopi alias Harmendra has assailed his conviction and sentence, vide, judgment and order dated 15.07.2014, passed in Sessions Trial No.142 of 2011, by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Haridwar, for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 376, 201, 404 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred as “the Penal Code”, for brevity) and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life along with a fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo six months imprisonment; rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years along with a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo three months imprisonment; rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years along with a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo one month imprisonment and rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year along with a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo one month imprisonment, respectively. All the sentences are directed to run concurrently.

2. The case of the prosecution, in short, is that Munesh Singh son of Lallu Singh on 05.03.2011 presented a written report in the Police Station Shyampur, District Haridwar, to the effect that for the three to four days prior lodging of FIR, he was discharging his duty in Chidiyapur. On the date of the FIR, he received information from Yograj son of Ghasita Singh that his wife’s dead body is lying near the agricultural field of one Suraj Singh. On such information, he reached his house and found that the dead body of his wife is lying in the agricultural fields of the said Suraj Singh. On enquiry from his children he came to learn that at about 09:00 p.m. on the previous night his wife proceeded holding a torch in her hand towards her elder brother Dayaram’s house, but, did not return therefrom. Therefore, he suspected some unknown person(s) might have committed rape and murder of her. On such report, Crime Case No.13 of 2011 was registered and the Investigating Officer took up investigation and arrested the accused on suspicion. The appellant, while in custody, led to the discovery of certain incriminating articles like ornaments of the deceased, mobile and torch. After collecting Scientific Officer’s report, he submitted a charge-sheet against the appellant under Sections 302, 376, 201, 404 of the Penal Code.

3. Admittedly, the case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence, however, the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Haridwar came to the conclusion that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and, therefore, convicted him for the offence under aforesaid sections and sentenced him as mentioned above. While, this appeal was pending, the appellant filed an application before this Court to the effect that on the date of occurrence he was a juvenile and as per the order passed by this Court on 07.08.2020, the Juvenile Justice Board having jurisdiction was directed to enquire in the matter and submit a report. The report has already been submitted to this Court vide a letter dated 19.08.2020.

4. Thus, basis on such report, this Court had already granted bail to the appellant.

5. We have carefully examined the report submitted by the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Haridwar. The Juvenile Justice Board, Haridwar has given a specific finding to the effect that appellant was a juvenile on the date of occurrence and he was 13 years 08 months and 04 days old. For better appreciation, the same is quoted below:-

“04. Since the date of birth of appellant in his first school has been mentioned as 01.07.1997 and date of occurrence of the offence is 04-05/03/2011 therefore on the date of occurrence appellant Gopi @ Harmendra was found to be of 13 years 8 month 4 days old. Appellant was less than 18 year of age on the date of occurrence therefore appellant Gopi @ Harmendra was Juvenile on the date of occurrence. After conductin