LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a claim of juvenility can be raised at any stage of criminal proceedings, even after a final conviction.
CASE TYPE: Criminal
Case Name: State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Ramji Lal Sharma & An Other
[Judgment Date]: September 23, 2024
Date of the Judgment: September 23, 2024
Citation: 2024 INSC 747
Judges: Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh
Can a person, convicted of a crime, claim to be a juvenile years after the incident and after their conviction has been upheld by the highest court? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a case where an accused claimed juvenility after his conviction was restored by the Supreme Court. This case explores the boundaries of when a claim of juvenility can be made and what evidence is required to support such a claim. The judgment was authored by Justice B.V. Nagarathna, with Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh concurring.
Case Background
The case stems from an incident on January 17, 2002, where the respondents were accused of offences under Section 302 (murder), Section 307 (attempt to murder), and Section 34 (acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), along with Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act). The trial court convicted the respondents on February 24, 2006. However, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Gwalior Bench, acquitted them on December 13, 2018. The State then appealed to the Supreme Court, which, on March 9, 2022, restored the trial court’s conviction. Following this, the second respondent, Brijnandan @ Brajesh Sharma, filed a miscellaneous application claiming he was a juvenile at the time of the offence.
Timeline:
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| January 17, 2002 | Incident occurred; FIR No. 8/2002 registered. |
| February 24, 2006 | Trial Court convicted the Respondents. |
| December 13, 2018 | High Court acquitted the Respondents. |
| March 9, 2022 | Supreme Court restored the Trial Court’s conviction. |
| May 16, 2024 | Supreme Court directed an inquiry into the juvenility claim. |
| July 16, 2024 | Special Judge, Bhind, submitted report on juvenility. |
| September 23, 2024 | Supreme Court set aside conviction of the applicant and acquitted him. |
Legal Framework:
The case involves several key legal provisions:
- ✓ Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): This section defines the punishment for murder.
- ✓ Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): This section defines the punishment for attempt to murder.
- ✓ Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): This section deals with acts done by several persons in furtherance of a common intention.
- ✓ Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act): This provision relates to offences under the SC/ST Act.
- ✓ Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015: This section deals with the procedure for determining the age of a person claiming to be a juvenile.
Arguments:
Applicant’s Arguments:
- ✓ Brijnandan @ Brajesh Sharma claimed juvenility on the date of the offence (January 17, 2002), stating he was about 17 years and 3 months old, based on his school records indicating a birth date of October 4, 1984.
- ✓ He argued that the claim of juvenility can be made at any stage of the criminal proceedings, even after final conviction, relying on the judgment in Abuzar Hossain vs. State of West Bengal, (2012) 10 SCC 489.
- ✓ The applicant contended that a minor discrepancy in his name across various documents should not negate his claim of juvenility, as his parentage is undisputed.
- ✓ He emphasized that a detailed inquiry was conducted by the Sessions Judge, who examined the applicant, his mother, and the head teacher, and that the State did not cross-examine these witnesses.
State’s Arguments:
- ✓ The State argued that the claim of juvenility was highly belated, as it was made only after the Supreme Court restored the conviction.
- ✓ The State pointed out discrepancies in the applicant’s name across different documents (Brijnandan alias Brajesh Sharma, Brijesh Kumar, Brijesh) as a reason to dismiss the application.
Submissions Table:
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions | Party |
|---|---|---|
| Claim of Juvenility |
|
Applicant |
| Belated Claim |
|
State |
| Discrepancy in Name |
|
State |
| Validity of Claim |
|
Applicant |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court:
The primary issue before the Supreme Court was:
- Whether the applicant was a juvenile on the date of the commission of the offence, i.e., on 17.01.2002.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court:
The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Brief Reasons |
|---|---|---|
| Whether the applicant was a juvenile on the date of the offence? | Yes | The court relied on the report of the Sessions Judge, which was based on the detailed inquiry and the examination of the applicant, his mother, and the head teacher. The court found the applicant’s date of birth to be 04.10.1984, making him a juvenile on the date of the offence. |
Authorities:
The Court considered the following authorities:
Cases:
- ✓ Abuzar Hossain vs. State of West Bengal, (2012) 10 SCC 489 – Supreme Court of India: This case established that a claim for juvenility can be made at any stage of criminal proceedings, even after final conviction.
- ✓ Pramila vs. State of Chhattisgarh, Criminal Appeal No.64/2012 – Supreme Court of India: This case reiterated that an application for claiming juvenility may be made even after the judgment and order of conviction and sentence has been granted against a person which has attained finality.
Legal Provisions:
- ✓ Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015: This provision outlines the procedure for determining the age of a person claiming to be a juvenile.
| Authority | Court | How Considered |
|---|---|---|
| Abuzar Hossain vs. State of West Bengal, (2012) 10 SCC 489 | Supreme Court of India | Followed |
| Pramila vs. State of Chhattisgarh, Criminal Appeal No.64/2012 | Supreme Court of India | Followed |
| Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 | Statute | Applied |
Judgment:
How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?
| Submission | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| Applicant’s claim of juvenility. | Accepted. The Court relied on the Sessions Judge’s report, which was based on a detailed inquiry, and found the applicant to be a juvenile on the date of the offence. |
| State’s argument that the claim was belated. | Rejected. The Court reiterated that a claim of juvenility can be made at any stage of the proceedings, even after final conviction, relying on Abuzar Hossain vs. State of West Bengal, (2012) 10 SCC 489. |
| State’s argument regarding discrepancies in the applicant’s name. | Rejected. The Court held that minor discrepancies in the name should not negate the claim of juvenility, especially when the parentage is undisputed. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
- ✓ The judgment in Abuzar Hossain vs. State of West Bengal, (2012) 10 SCC 489* was followed to establish that a claim for juvenility can be made at any stage of criminal proceedings, even after final conviction and sentence.
- ✓ The judgment in Pramila vs. State of Chhattisgarh, Criminal Appeal No.64/2012* was followed to reiterate that an application for claiming juvenility may be made even after the judgment and order of conviction and sentence has been granted against a person which has attained finality.
- ✓ Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 was applied to determine the age of the applicant based on the inquiry report.
The Supreme Court, after considering the report of the Sessions Judge, held that the applicant was a juvenile on the date of the offence. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction recorded against the applicant and acquitted him. As he was on interim bail, his bail bonds were cancelled.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?:
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the factual finding that the applicant was a juvenile at the time of the offence, as established by the inquiry conducted by the Sessions Judge. The Court also relied on the legal principle that a claim of juvenility can be raised at any stage of the proceedings, even after a final conviction. The Court emphasized that the welfare of the child is a paramount consideration in such cases.
| Reason | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Factual finding of juvenility | 60% |
| Legal principle allowing juvenility claim at any stage | 30% |
| Welfare of the child | 10% |
Fact:Law Ratio
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 70% |
| Law | 30% |
Logical Reasoning:
Applicant claims juvenility
Court directs inquiry by Sessions Judge
Sessions Judge finds applicant was a juvenile
Supreme Court accepts the report
Conviction set aside and applicant acquitted
The Court’s reasoning was based on the following points:
- ✓ The Court relied on the detailed inquiry conducted by the Sessions Judge, which included the examination of the applicant, his mother, and the head teacher of his school.
- ✓ The Court emphasized that the report of the Sessions Judge was based on documentary evidence and the testimony of witnesses, which was not challenged by the State.
- ✓ The Court reiterated the principle that a claim of juvenility can be made at any stage of the proceedings, even after a final conviction, and cited the judgments in Abuzar Hossain and Pramila vs. State of Chhattisgarh to support this principle.
- ✓ The Court did not find any reason to doubt the findings of the Sessions Judge on the juvenility of the applicant.
The Court did not consider any alternative interpretations, as the factual finding of juvenility was clear and supported by the evidence. The Court, therefore, set aside the conviction of the applicant and acquitted him.
“…the applicant’s date of birth is 04.10.1984 and consequently on the date of the incident , i.e. on 17.01.2002, he was 17 years 3 months and 13 days old…”
“…the applicant being a juvenile on the date of the commission of the offence is entitled to the benefit of the provisions of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protocol of Children) Act, 2015…”
“…the claim of juvenility made by the applicant , who was arrayed as accused no.3 is upheld and the conviction as recorded against him by this Court is set -aside and he stands acquitted.”
Key Takeaways:
- ✓ A claim of juvenility can be raised at any stage of criminal proceedings, even after a final conviction by the Supreme Court.
- ✓ Courts must conduct a thorough inquiry to determine the age of the accused when a claim of juvenility is made.
- ✓ Minor discrepancies in the name of the accused should not negate a claim of juvenility if the parentage is undisputed.
- ✓ The welfare of the child is a paramount consideration in cases involving claims of juvenility.
Directions:
The Supreme Court directed that since the applicant was on interim bail, his bail bonds stand cancelled.
Development of Law:
The ratio decidendi of this case is that a claim of juvenility can be raised at any stage of criminal proceedings, even after a final conviction. This reaffirms the existing legal position and emphasizes the importance of proper age verification in cases involving children. There is no change in the previous position of law but the judgment reinforces the existing law on the subject.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the miscellaneous application filed by Brijnandan @ Brajesh Sharma, holding that he was a juvenile on the date of the offence. The Court set aside his conviction and acquitted him, reinforcing the principle that a claim of juvenility can be made at any stage of criminal proceedings, even after a final conviction. This decision underscores the importance of ensuring that the rights of juveniles are protected under the law.
Category:
Parent Category: Juvenile Justice
Child Category: Claim of Juvenility
Child Category: Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015
Child Category: Section 94, Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015
Parent Category: Criminal Law
Child Category: Indian Penal Code, 1860
Child Category: Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860
Child Category: Section 307, Indian Penal Code, 1860
Child Category: Section 34, Indian Penal Code, 1860
FAQ:
Q: Can someone claim to be a juvenile even after being convicted?
A: Yes, the Supreme Court has reaffirmed that a claim of juvenility can be raised at any stage of criminal proceedings, even after a final conviction.
Q: What happens if there are discrepancies in the name of the accused?
A: Minor discrepancies in the name should not negate a claim of juvenility if the parentage is undisputed. The focus is on ensuring that the person is indeed a juvenile.
Q: What is the importance of the inquiry in such cases?
A: A thorough inquiry is crucial to determine the age of the accused. The inquiry involves examining documents and witnesses, and the report of the inquiry is a key factor in the court’s decision.
Q: What happens if someone is found to be a juvenile after conviction?
A: If a person is found to be a juvenile, their conviction can be set aside, and they are usually acquitted. The case is then dealt with under the provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act.
Q: What is the main takeaway from this judgment?
A: The main takeaway is that the welfare of the child is a paramount consideration, and the law allows for claims of juvenility to be raised at any stage to ensure that children are not punished as adults.