Rahul Kumar Yadav vs The State of Bihar

Court

Supreme Court of India

Date

25 April 2024

Case No.

Criminal Appeal No. 177 of 2018

Bench

Bhushan Ramkrishna Gavai, Sandeep Mehta

Citation

[2024] 5 S.C.R. 501 : 2024 INSC 359

Acts & Sections

IPC CrPC Arms Act, 1959

Issue for consideration

The issue for consideration was challenge to the conviction of the Petitioner under Section 302 and 394 IPC on the ground that the courts below erred in not considering the Petitioner’s plea of juvenility on the date of commission of the alleged offence.

Headnote

Criminal Law – Plea of juvenility may be raised before any Court and it shall be recognised at any stage, even after final disposal of the case – Courts should be guided by object and purpose of the Juvenile Justice (JJ) Act and the matter should be considered prima facie on the touchstone of preponderance of probability – Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2015 – s.9(2).

Held: The Court held that the claim of juvenility can be raised for the first time even in appeal if not pressed before the trial court, including the Supreme Court – The focus of JJ Act is on the juvenile’s reformation and rehabilitation, and hyper technical approach of the Court should not defeat the beneficent provisions contained in the Act – Reliance placed on Section 9(2) of JJ Act, 2015. [Para 10-13] Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2015 – s.94 – Prima facie case/ initial burden to be discharged by the claimant to satisfy the Court that inquiry into the belated claim of juvenility is necessary – Materials

Held: The Court reiterated the guidelines laid down for evaluating the claim of juvenility raised after conviction by the Supreme Court in Abuzar Hossain vs State of West Bengal, (2012) 10 SCC 489 – The Court observed that where the plea of juvenility is raised at a belated stage, medical tests could be resorted to for age determination in absence of the documents enumerated in Section 94 of the JJ Act, 2015. [Para 12-13]

Judgement Mehta, J. Criminal Appeal No. 177 of 2018 1. This appeal is preferred by the appellant-Rahul Kumar Yadav assailing the judgments dated 30th April, 2014 and 29th June, 2017 passed by the learned Division Bench of Patna High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 518 of 2013. 2. The appellant and the co-accused were tried by the learned first Additional Sessions Judge, Darbhanga(hereinafter being referred to as the ‘trial Court’) in Sessions Trial No. 441 of 2011 for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 394 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860(hereinafter being referred to as ‘IPC’) and

View Subscription Plans →