AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
The appellant/applicant Rajbeer has been convicted along with co-convicts Prem and Naresh on 29.01.2003, under Sections 148, 302 read with 34 IPC in Sessions Trial No.194 of 1997, State v. Prem and Others, by the court of District and Sessions Judge, Haridwar (“the Sessions Trial”). By the judgment and order dated 29.01.2003 passed in the Sessions Trial, two persons namely Pawan and Ratiram were acquitted of the charges levelled against them.
The judgment and order dated 29.01.2003 passed in the Sessions Trial was challenged by the convicts in Criminal Appeal No.51 of 2003, Prem and Others v. State of Uttaranchal, and by the State against the acquittal of some of the persons in Government Appeal No.134 of 2003, State of Uttaranchal v. Pawan and Another. Those appeals were dismissed by the order dated 24.05.2012 by the Division Bench of this Court. Thereafter, Criminal Appeal No.5754 of 2012 was preferred by the appellant/applicant, which was dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 03.08.2012.
Subsequent to it, the appellant/applicant Rajbeer moved an application through Senior Superintendant, District Jail, Haridwar on 09.06.2025 that on 01.02.1996, which is the date of incident, he was 14 years, 6 months and 22 days old. Therefore, he may be given benefit of juvenile in conflict with law.
After hearing the parties on the application submitted by the appellant/applicant from jail, on 16.06.2026, this Court requested the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court to conduct an enquiry with regard to the date of birth of the appellant/applicant Rajbeer as to what is his date of birth and what was his age on the date of incident.
The Registrar (Judicial) of this Court has submitted a report dated 13.07.2026, and has concluded in Para No.13 that the date of birth of the appellant is 10.07.1981. Therefore, on the date of incident, i.e. on 01.02.1996, he was 14 years, 6 months and 22 days old. Para 13 of the report reads as follows:-
In view of the above, particularly on the basis of
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
Learned counsel for the appellant/applicant submits that in the instant case, the incident took place on 01.02.1996; the date of birth of the appellant/applicant is 10.07.1981. Therefore, on the date of incident, he was 14 years 6 months and 22 days old, and he should be given the benefit of a juvenile.
Learned State Counsel submits that the enquiry report submitted by the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court confirms that the appellant/applicant Rajbeer was 14 years 6 months and 22 days old on the date of incident, and there is nothing against this report. The prosecution also accepts this date of birth.
The day when allegedly the offence was committed, Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 was in force (1986 Act), and according to Section 2(h) of the 1986 Act, “"juvenile" means a boy who has not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who has not attained the age of eighteen years”. But fact remains that the decision by the trial court was given in the instant case on 29.01.2003, on which date the 1986 Act was not in operation. By the time, the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 had come into force with effect from 01.04.2001 (“the 2000 Act”).
Section 7A of the 2000 Act makes provisions with regard to the procedure that may be followed when claim of juvenility is raised before any Court. It reads as follows:-
“7A. Procedure to be followed when claim of juvenility is raised before any Court.-(1) Whenever a claim of juvenility is raised before any Court or a Court is of the opinion that an accused person was a juvenile on the date of commission of the offence, the Court shall make an inquiry, take such evidence as may be necessary (but not an affidavit) so as to determine the age of such person, and shall record a finding whether the person is a juvenile or a child or not, stating his age as nearly as may be:
Provided that a claim of juvenility may be raised before any Court and it shall be recognised at any stage, even after final disposal of the case, and such claim shall be determined in terms of the provisions contained in this Act and the rules made thereunder, even if the juvenile has ceased to be so on or before the date of commencement of this Act. (2) If the Court finds a person to be a juvenile on the date of commission of the offence under sub-section (1), it shall forward the juvenile to the Board for passing appropriate order, and the sentence, if any, passed by a Court shall be deemed to have no effect.”
A bare perusal of Section 7A of the 2000 Act makes it abundantly clear that the plea of juvenility can be claimed at any stage even after final disposal of the case. In the instant case, it has been done by the appellant after conviction.
In the instant case, the date of birth of the appellant/applicant has been determined by the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court. In fact, in the case of Raju v. State of Haryana, (2019) 14 SCC 401, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had directed the Registrar (Judicial) of that Court to conduct an enquiry, and once the report was received, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Para Nos. 18 and 19 observed as follows:-
“18.Therefore, it is evident that the only inquiry as stipulated under the 2000 Act and the 2007 Rules was conducted by the Registrar (Judicial) upon the directions of this Court, after the Court was satisfied upon going through the school certificates adduced by the appellant that the certificates in question prima facie entitled him to claim the conduct of such an inquiry. In such a situation, the question regarding whether precedence may be given to the inquiry of a Registrar (Judicial) of this Court over the opinion of the High Court regarding the age of an accused can be restated as whether such inquiry conducted by the Registrar (Judicial) upon the direction of this Court, if thereafter affirmed by this Court, would amount to an inquiry conducted by this Court itself. If this be the case, the findings of such inquiry would prevail over the view taken by the High Court, as is evident from the preceding discussion.
19.We are of the opinion that the above question must be answered in the affirmative. This Court, on previous occasions as well, has adopted the practice of directing the
The Registrar (Judicial) of this Court has conducted a detailed enquiry in the matter, and considered the school record, examined the principal of the school, the other documents to arrive at a conclusion. There is no doubt that the enquiry conducted by the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court amounts to an enquiry conducted by this Court itself, and it is conclusive to the age of the appellant/applicant under the provisions of the 2000 Act. Accordingly, this Court records that the date of birth of the appellant/applicant Rajbeer is 10.07.1981, and on the date of incident, i.e. on 01.02.1996, he was 14 years 6 months and 22 days old, and was definitely a juvenile.
What happens if a juvenile is convicted along with other persons. In a similar situation, in the case of Pawan Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, (2023) 15 SCC 683, one of the appellants was held to be juvenile by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, who had already undergone sentence along with other co-convicts. Under those facts and circumstances, the Hon’ble Supreme Court although upheld the conviction but quashed the sentences, and having considered the period of custody, which the appellant in that case had undergone, he was released. In Para Nos. 43, 44 and 45, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as follows:-
“43.Consequently, we accept the report of the Additional Sessions Judge, Barabanki dated 28-9-2022 and declare that the appellant was a juvenile on the date of the commission of crime i.e. on 1-12-1995.
44.The other two co-accused i.e. Gaya Prasad Mishra and Gulab Chandra have been convicted and sentenced inter alia to life imprisonment. Although both of them have been prematurely released by the State Government under its remission policy, yet the fact remains that they were convicted (along with the appellant), for the offences under Sections 302/34 and 307/34 by the trial court in trial as well as by the High Court in appeal after examining the entire evidence in detail. The role assigned to the present appellant is no different than the role assigned to the other two accused who were convicted under Sections 302 and 307 read with Section 34IPC. It is exactly the same role and clearly Section 34 of the Penal Code is also attracted. We have already declared the appellant as a juvenile, but there is also an order of conviction against the appellant, which is based on the evidence placed by the prosecution against the other two accused and the present appellant, which is common. It is not possible therefore to take a different view for the present appellant than what has been taken by the trial court and the appellate court against the other two accused regarding their conviction. Therefore, we sustain the conviction of the appellant under Sections 302 and 307IPC read with Section 34IPC, but all the sentences which have been awarded to him are hereby quashed as such sentences cannot be given to a juvenile, in view of Section 16 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000.
45.The appeal is partly allowed on the question of juvenility as indicated hereinabove, and the order of the High Court will stand modified to this extent. The appellant is presently in jail. He should be around 43 years of age as of now. Considering all the relevant aspects including the fact that the appellant has already been declared a juvenile by this Court and in view of Sections 15 and 16 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, since the maximum period for which a juvenile can be detained is three years and the appellant has already undergone imprisonment for 4½ years, we hereby
At this stage, it may be noted that the applicability of 2000 Act in the present matter is well settled by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hari Ram v. State of Rajasthan and Another, (2009) 13 SCC 211, in Para 59 of the judgment in that case, a solution for the situation like the present one has been given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. It reads as follows:-
In the instant case also, the appellant/applicant was below 18 years of age on 01.02.1996, and he claimed juvenility post conviction.
In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the view that the appellant/applicant Rajbeer deserves to be given benefit of a juvenile. Therefore, this Court has no option but to sustain the conviction of the appellant/applicant Rajbeer under Sections 148, 302 read with 34 IPC, but all the sentences, which have been awarded to the appellant/applicant Rajbeer are to be quashed because as such, those sentences cannot be given to a juvenile in conflict with law in view of Section 15 of the 2000 Act.
Accordingly, we sustain the conviction of the appellant/applicant Rajbeer under Sections 148, 302 read with 34 IPC, but all the sentences are quashed.
The appellant/applicant Rajbeer is in jail. Learned State Counsel has stated that the appellant has already undergone more that 14 years of sentence awarded to him.
The appellant/applicant Rajbeer has already been declared a juvenile in conflict with law, and in view of Section 15 and 16 of the 2000 Act, since the maximum period for which a juvenile can be detained is three years, we hereby order that the appellant/applicant Rajbeer be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other case.