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

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Raju @ Vijay – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent


Advocates:
Nilesh Dave,Advocate General

(Passed on 10.06.2021)

Appellant has filed the present appeal under section 14(A)(2) of

the Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act

(for short 'the SC/ST Act') being aggrieved by the order dated

16.09.2020 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Rajgarh

whereby the application filed by the accused seeking declaration that

he is “child in conflict with law” and his trial be sent to Board was

rejected.

Facts of the case in short are as under:

2.

An FIR was registered against the appellant under sections 363,

366, 376-B, 376(2) of the IPC read with section 5 & 6 of the

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act and 3(2)(v) of the

SC/ST Act and he was arrested. The investigation was completed and

charge sheet has been filed before the Special Session Judge . In the

charge sheet his age is declared as 19 years at the time of commission

of offence on 25.12.2019.

3.

Appellant/accused filed an application asserting that at the time

of commission of the offence he was below 16 years of age i.e.

juvenile, therefore, his trial be sent to the juvenile Court/ board. In

-3-

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 telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top