IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR GUPTA

rd

ON THE 23 OF FEBRUARY, 2026 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 24675 of 2018 MAHAVIR @ AVNISH Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR Appearance:

Shri Gaurav Mishra - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Dinesh Savita- PP for the State.

ORDER

1. This petition has been preferred under Section 482 r/w Section 362 of the Cr.P.C along with Section 7-A of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 seeking recall of the order dated 17.03.2017 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 05/2006, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner against his conviction under Section 201(Part II)

of IPC was dismissed.

2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that deceased Bhuri and her infant daughter Guddi alias Gudia were found dead on 13.09.2004 and it was alleged that the accused persons, including the present petitioner, caused disappearance of evidence by cremating the dead bodies without informing the relatives or the police. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed for offences under Sections 302, 304-B and 201 IPC. The Trial Court, vide judgment dated 21.12.2005 acquitted the accused persons of the charges under Sections 302 and 304-B IPC, holding that the prosecution had failed to establish murder or dowry death beyond reasonable doubt. However, the Trial Court convicted the accused persons, including the petitioner, under Section 201( Part II) of IPC, on the premise that the deaths were of homicidal nature and the evidence thereof was destroyed. The said conviction was affirmed by this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 05/2006 vide order dated 17.03.2017. The Special Leave Petition preferred before the Hon’ble Supreme Court was dismissed as withdrawn on 11.05.2018. The present petition raises, inter alia, a claim of juvenility, contending that the petitioner was below 18 years of age on the date of incident i.e. 13.09.2004 as, his correct date of birth being 1.07.1987.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that juvenility is a jurisdictional fact, which can be raised at any stage, even after final disposal of the case, as expressly provided under Section 7-A of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000. Documentary evidence including school records and birth-related certificates consistently reflect the petitioner’s date of birth as 01.07.1987, making him 17 years, 2 months and 12 days old on the date of occurrence. Even this Court, while granting bail during trial, recorded the petitioner’s age as 17 years, which fact remained part of judicial record but was never adjudicated. Pursuant to the directions of a Coordinate Bench, the Juvenile Justice Board Morena, after conducting a statutory enquiry, has already submitted a report dated 11.05.2019 categorically holding the petitioner to be a juvenile on the date of incident. The petitioner relies upon a catena of judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court holding that delay in raising juvenility is immaterial, and that the Court must adopt a liberal and child centric approach.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed heavy reliance upon a series of judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court to contend that once juvenility is established, the Court may restrict the sentence to the period already undergone instead of remanding the matter. Reliance has been placed upon Pratap Singh v. State of Jharkhand (2005) 3 SCC 551 , wherein it has been authoritatively held that the determination of juvenility must be with reference to the date of commission of the offence and not the date of cognizance. The said judgment underscores the principle that the Juvenile Justice Act is a beneficial legistation, requiring liberal construction in favour of the child in conflict with law.

5. Further reliance has been placed upon Abdul Razzaq v. State of U.P. (2015) 15 SCC 637, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court reiterated that a claim of juvenility may be raised even after final disposal of the case, and that delay in raising