The Supreme Court in its recent ruling stated that a plea of juvenility may be raised before any Court and it shall be recognized at any stage, even after final disposal of the case.
The bench of Justices B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta was dealing with the appeal challenging the judgment passed by the Patna High Court.
In this case, the appellant and a co-accused were tried in Sessions Trial for the offences under Sections 302 and 394 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Section 27(2) of the Arms Act, 1959. The trial court convicted them, sentencing them to death for the Section 302 charge.
They filed an appeal to the Patna High Court, resulting in a split opinion from the Division Bench. One judge found the appeal without merit, while the other believed they should be acquitted due to doubt. The matter was then referred to a third judge, who dismissed the appeal but commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment.
Before the case was committed, the appellant claimed juvenile status under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, based on his horoscope. However, this claim was rejected both by the Chief Judicial Magistrate and later by the trial court.
Shri Rauf Rahim, counsel for the appellant submitted that the plea made on behalf of the appellant in the trial Court claiming that he was a juvenile on the date of the incident was dismissed in an absolutely perfunctory manner without holding a proper inquiry and simply on the ground the same prayer had been turned down by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate earlier.
Supreme Court stated that during the pendency of the appeal before the Patna High Court, the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2015 came into force. This act provides a comprehensive mechanism for considering the claim of juvenility raised on behalf of an accused who asserts to have been a child at the time of the offense. The proviso to Section 9(2) of the JJ Act, 2015 clearly states that the plea of juvenility can be raised before any court and it must be recognized at any stage, even after the case has been finally disposed of. However, the High Court did not consider or decide upon the prayer of juvenility raised on behalf of the appellant.
The bench referred to the case of Vinod Katara v. State of Uttar Pradesh where the Supreme Court directed the concerned Sessions Court to inquire regarding the age of the accused as per law, even though, he had crossed the age of 50 years and his appeal against conviction was rejected by this Court taking into consideration the aspect regarding the determination of plea of juvenility at the belated stages.
Supreme Court opined that the proper inquiry in accordance with the provisions of the JJ Act, 2000 or the JJ Act, 2015 was not carried out so to consider the prayer made by the appellant to be treated as juvenile on the date of the incident even though the plea was raised at the earliest opportunity. It can be said without a cavil of doubt that the plea of juvenility raised by the appellant could not have been thrown out without conducting proper inquiry.
In view of the above, the bench directed the First Additional Sessions Judge, Darbhanga to conduct a thorough inquiry to determine the age/date of birth of the appellant in accordance with the procedure provided under the JJ Act, 2015 and the rules framed thereunder.
Case Title: Rahul Kumar Yadav v. The State of Bihar
Bench: Justices B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta
Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 177 OF 2018
To get free legal advice: click here
For more legal updates visit our Youtube channel: click here
