Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal of Raju, who was convicted under Section 376(2)(g) of the Indian Penal Code for gangrape and sentenced to 10 years' rigorous imprisonment. The appellant raised the plea of juvenility before the Supreme Court, claiming he was below 18 years on the date of the offence (14.09.2000). He relied on school certificates showing his date of birth as 12.07.1984. The Supreme Court directed the Registrar (Judicial) to conduct an inquiry under Section 7A of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 read with Rule 12 of the 2007 Rules. The inquiry report determined that the appellant was 16 years, 2 months and 2 days old at the time of the offence, making him a juvenile. The High Court had rejected the juvenility plea without conducting the mandatory inquiry, merely assessing material on record. The Supreme Court held that the inquiry conducted by this Court under Section 7A and Rule 12 is conclusive and prevails over the High Court's view. Consequently, the conviction and sentence were set aside, and the matter was remitted to the Juvenile Justice Board for passing appropriate orders under the 2000 Act.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Gangrape - Section 376(2)(g) IPC - Conviction and Sentence - Appellant convicted for gangrape and sentenced to 10 years' rigorous imprisonment - High Court affirmed conviction - Supreme Court allowed appeal on ground of juvenility (Paras 1-3) B) Juvenile Justice - Claim of Juvenility - Section 7A Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 - Claim can be raised at any stage before any court, even after final disposal - Court must conduct inquiry to determine age - Evidence under Rule 12(3) of 2007 Rules is conclusive proof of age (Paras 9-13) C) Juvenile Justice - Age Determination - Rule 12(3) Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 - Procedure for age determination inquiry - Matriculation certificate, school certificate, birth certificate from municipal authority, and only in absence thereof, medical opinion - Such evidence is conclusive proof of age (Para 12) D) Juvenile Justice - Precedence of Inquiry Report - Inquiry conducted by Supreme Court under Section 7A prevails over High Court's view if High Court did not conduct proper inquiry as per Section 7A and Rule 12 - High Court rejected juvenility plea without conducting mandatory inquiry - Supreme Court's inquiry report binding (Paras 13-15) E) Juvenile Justice - Benefit of Juvenile Justice Act - Appellant found to be 16 years, 2 months and 2 days old on date of offence - Entitled to benefit of 2000 Act - Conviction and sentence set aside - Matter remitted to Juvenile Justice Board for appropriate orders (Paras 16-17)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the report of the inquiry conducted by the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court under Section 7A of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, determining that the Appellant was a juvenile on the date of commission of the offence, should be given precedence over the contrary view taken by the High Court, so that the benefit of the 2000 Act may be given to the Appellant
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Conviction and sentence set aside. Matter remitted to Juvenile Justice Board for passing appropriate orders under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, in accordance with law. Appellant to be released from custody forthwith unless required in any other case.
Law Points
- Juvenility claim can be raised at any stage
- even after final disposal
- inquiry under Section 7A of Juvenile Justice Act
- 2000 read with Rule 12 of 2007 Rules is mandatory
- evidence specified in Rule 12(3) is conclusive proof of age
- such inquiry by Supreme Court prevails over High Court's view if High Court did not conduct proper inquiry
