Supreme Court Rejects Re-agitation of Juvenility Claim: Pawan Kumar Gupta vs. State of NCT of Delhi (20 January 2020)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 20 January 2020

Citation: 2020 INSC 46

Judges: R. Banumathi, Ashok Bhushan, A.S. Bopanna

Can a person repeatedly claim to be a juvenile after their claim has been rejected by multiple courts, including the Supreme Court? This was the core question before the Supreme Court of India in the case of *Pawan Kumar Gupta vs. State of NCT of Delhi*. The Supreme Court addressed whether a plea of juvenility could be re-agitated after it had been previously rejected by the Trial Court, High Court, and the Supreme Court itself. The bench comprised Justices R. Banumathi, Ashok Bhushan, and A.S. Bopanna.

Case Background

The petitioner, Pawan Kumar Gupta, was accused in a criminal case. He claimed that he was a juvenile at the time of the alleged offense, which occurred on 16 December 2012. According to the petitioner, his date of birth was 08 October 1996, based on a School Leaving Certificate from Gayatri Bal Sanskar Shala. This would make him 16 years, 2 months, and 8 days old at the time of the incident. He argued that as a juvenile, he should not be sentenced to death or life imprisonment, as per Section 21 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (JJ Act).

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The petitioner initially raised the plea of juvenility before the trial court. The trial court directed the Investigating Officer to submit a report on the documents used to determine the petitioner’s age. The Metropolitan Magistrate, after considering the report, rejected the plea of juvenility on 10 January 2013, noting that the petitioner’s parents had confirmed his age and that the petitioner did not dispute being over 18 years at the time of the offense. This order was not challenged by the petitioner.

Subsequently, the petitioner raised the plea of juvenility again before the High Court during the criminal appeal. The High Court rejected this plea on 13 March 2014, noting that the Metropolitan Magistrate’s order had not been challenged and that the parents had confirmed the petitioner’s age.

The petitioner then raised the plea of juvenility in a review petition before the Supreme Court, which was also rejected on 09 July 2018. The Supreme Court specifically noted the order of the Metropolitan Magistrate and the confirmation of age by the parents.

Despite these rejections, the petitioner filed a fresh application under Section 7A of the JJ Act. The Additional Sessions Judge dismissed this application on 21 December 2018, citing the Supreme Court’s order. The High Court also dismissed the revision petition against this order on 19 December 2019, referring to the Supreme Court’s previous rejection of the juvenility plea.

Legal Framework

The primary legal framework for this case is the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (JJ Act).

Section 7A of the JJ Act: This section allows a person to raise a claim of juvenility before any court at any stage, even after the final disposal of the case.
“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.”

Section 21 of the JJ Act: This section prohibits sentencing a child in conflict with the law to death or life imprisonment.
“21. No child to be sentenced to death or imprisonment for life. – Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law for the time being in force, no child shall be sentenced to death or imprisonment for life.”

Arguments

Petitioner’s Arguments:

• The petitioner argued that the School Leaving Certificate from Gayatri Bal Sanskar Shala showed his date of birth as 08 October 1996, making him a juvenile at the time of the offense.
• He contended that the certificate was found to be genuine by investigating officials.
• The petitioner relied on Section 7A of the JJ Act, which allows a plea of juvenility to be raised at any stage.
• The petitioner cited *Ram Narain v. State of Uttar Pradesh* [(2015) 17 SCC 699], *Upendra Pradhan v. State of Orissa* [(2015) 11 SCC 124], and *Ashwani Kumar Saxena v. State of Madhya Pradesh* [(2012) 9 SCC 750] to support the argument that a plea of juvenility can be raised at any stage.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• The respondent argued that the petitioner had raised the plea of juvenility multiple times before the trial court, High Court, and Supreme Court, and it was rejected each time.
• The respondent highlighted that the Metropolitan Magistrate’s order of 10 January 2013, which rejected the juvenility plea, was never challenged by the petitioner.
• The respondent pointed out that the Supreme Court had already considered and rejected the juvenility plea in its order dated 09 July 2018.
• The respondent contended that the plea of juvenility cannot be re-agitated by filing a fresh application under Section 7A of the JJ Act.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in the judgment. However, the core issue was:

1. Whether the petitioner could re-agitate the plea of juvenility under Section 7A of the JJ Act after it had been rejected by the trial court, High Court, and the Supreme Court.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Supreme Court acknowledged the principle in *Ram Narain v. State of Uttar Pradesh* [(2015) 17 SCC 699] and *Upendra Pradhan v. State of Orissa* [(2015) 11 SCC 124] that a claim of juvenility can be raised at any stage. However, the Court distinguished these cases by stating that once the plea has been rejected by the Supreme Court, it cannot be re-agitated.
• The Supreme Court referred to *Ashwani Kumar Saxena v. State of Madhya Pradesh* [(2012) 9 SCC 750] regarding the procedure for determining age, but did not find it relevant to the issue of re-agitation.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court was primarily concerned with the finality of judicial decisions and preventing the abuse of the legal process. The Court emphasized that while the plea of juvenility can be raised at any stage, it cannot be re-agitated after it has been conclusively rejected by the highest court. The Court also noted that the petitioner had ample opportunity to present his case and that the Metropolitan Magistrate’s order, which was not challenged, was based on the verification of the petitioner’s age and the statement of his parents.

The Court reasoned that while Section 7A of the JJ Act allows a plea of juvenility to be raised at any stage, it does not permit the re-agitation of the same plea after it has been considered and rejected by the Supreme Court. The Court emphasized the need for finality in legal proceedings. The Court also noted that the petitioner had raised the plea of juvenility at multiple stages and had been given the opportunity to present his case. The Court highlighted that the Metropolitan Magistrate’s order was not challenged and was based on the age verification report, which included the statements of the parents of the petitioner.

The Supreme Court did not consider any alternative interpretations.

The majority opinion was delivered by Justice R. Banumathi, with Justices Ashok Bhushan and A.S. Bopanna concurring.

The Supreme Court quoted the following from its previous order:
“18. …..On the claim that Pawan was a juvenile, Shri Luthra referred to the order dated 10-1-2013 where age verification report of Pawan has been received and also certified copies had been filed on record. The report had referred to the written statement of the parents of both these accused where they have confirmed the age of their wards. There was no infirmity in the trial court taking decision that both were major and the trial court proceeded accordingly. There is no substance in the submission raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners.”

“45. Now, coming to the submission of the learned counsel for Petitioner 2 that he was juvenile at the time of occurrence. The said issue was also considered by the trial court and rejected. The trial court on the basis of the material placed before it had rightly concluded that Petitioner 2 was not a juvenile. The learned counsel for the respondent has rightly referred to the proceedings of the trial court dated 10-9-2013. In this respect this submission also does not furnish any ground for review of the judgment.”

The Supreme Court also noted that the High Court had observed:
“150. ……It may be noted that the learned M.M. in her order has clearly recorded the fact that the parents of Vinay Sharma and Pawan Kumar had confirmed the age of their respective wards as set out in the Report which included the written statement of the parents of both the accused persons. Learned M.M. further noted that the counsel for accused Vinay Sharma and Pawan Kumar along with the said accused had not raised any objection to the Age Verification Report filed by the I.O. and the accused did not dispute their age to be above 18 years at the time of the commission of the offence.”

Key Takeaways

• A plea of juvenility can be raised at any stage of a legal proceeding, including after final disposal of the case.
• However, once a plea of juvenility has been considered and rejected by the Supreme Court, it cannot be re-agitated through a fresh application under Section 7A of the JJ Act.
• The principle of finality of judicial decisions is important to prevent the abuse of the legal process.
• The verification of age by the investigating officer and the statements of the parents of the accused are important factors in determining the age of the accused.

Directions

No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court in this judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that while Section 7A of the JJ Act allows a plea of juvenility to be raised at any stage, it does not permit the re-agitation of the same plea after it has been considered and rejected by the Supreme Court. This clarifies the scope and limitations of Section 7A of the JJ Act. The judgment reinforces the principle of finality in legal proceedings, ensuring that matters that have been conclusively decided by the highest court are not repeatedly litigated.

Conclusion

In *Pawan Kumar Gupta vs. State of NCT of Delhi*, the Supreme Court dismissed the petitioner’s appeal, holding that a plea of juvenility cannot be re-agitated after it has been rejected by the Trial Court, High Court, and the Supreme Court. The Court emphasized the importance of finality in judicial decisions and the need to prevent abuse of the legal process. The judgment clarifies that while Section 7A of the JJ Act allows the plea of juvenility to be raised at any stage, it does not permit the re-agitation of the same plea after it has been conclusively rejected by the Supreme Court.