Read Time: 13 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court has recently set aside conviction of a man in a murder case after accepting his claim of juvenility on date of the incident in 2002, though the top court had confirmed his involvement in 2022.

A bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and N Kotiswar Singh found that the date of birth of the man had been proved to be October 04, 1984 after a report submitted by the Sessions Judge, pursuant to the directions of the top court.

"Although the application has been filed subsequent to the conviction ordered by this Court, we have regard to the judgment of this Court in Pramila Vs State of Chhattisgarh, 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," the bench said.

The man filed an application in the disposed of criminal appeal, seeking his release from further jail sentence, on the ground of his juvenility on the date of the offence, i.e., on January 17, 2002.

The case was filed with Police Station AJK Bhind, District Bhinda, Madhya Pradesh, for the offences committed under Sections 302, 307 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, read with Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 

The Special Judge, Bhind convicted the accused for the offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC and awarded life imprisonment and fine of Rs 5000 by judgment on February 24, 2006.

The high court allowed the appeal preferred by the accused in its judgment of December 13, 2018 and set aside his conviction. 

However, the apex court by judgment on March 09, 2022, allowed the appeal filed by the State and, resultantly, the respondents were convicted and the sentence imposed by the trial court was restored. 

In his plea, the applicant claimed he was a minor on the date of commission and had already undergone a sentence of more than four years.

During the hearing, the bench noted that it was borne out that while the date of birth of the applicant as per the school record was October 04, 1984, it was March 10, 1984 as per the Aadhaar Card. 

On May 16, 2024, the court had directed the Sessions Court, District Bhind, Madhya Pradesh to conduct an enquiry with regard to the claim of juvenility made by the applicant herein and to submit a report to the top court in accordance with law. 

By a report of July 16, 2024, the Special Judge (Atrocities), Bhind, MP held that the applicant’s date of birth was October 04, 1984 and consequently on the date of the incident, i.e. on January 17, 2002, he was 17 years 3 months and 13 days old, (though wrongly typed as 17.03.2002 and 17 years 5 months and 13 days in the order dated 16.07.2024). 

The applicant's counsel said that being a juvenile on the date of the commission of the offence, he was entitled to the benefit of the provisions of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protocol of Children) Act, 2015.

His counsel also said that having regard to the fact that the Sessions Judge had conducted a detailed enquiry by examining not only the applicant but also his mother and incharge Head Teacher Government Primary School, Deori, Police Station Mehgaon, District Bhind, Madhya Pradesh, he may be granted the benefit of juvenility and the conviction as against him herein may be set aside.

Opposing the application, the state counsel said that the plea of juvenility was highly belated as the incident took place in 2002.

He also said there was discrepancy in the name of the applicant in the special leave petition.

He submitted, "The petition notes the applicant’s name as Brijnandan alias Brajesh Sharma son of Ramji Lal Sharma, whereas in the school documents it is noted as Brijesh Kumar and in the Aadhaar Card it is just Brijesh. Therefore, the miscellaneous application may be dismissed".

Relying upon Abuzar Hossain Vs State of West Bengal, (2012), the applicant said that the claim for juvenility may be made at any stage of the criminal proceedings and even after final conviction and sentence.

He also said that although the name of the applicant as stated by the informant and the prosecution might be slightly at variance with the name of the applicant in the school records as well as in the enquiry that had been conducted on the basis of the documents but the fact remained that the applicant was the son of Ramji Lal and there being no dispute about the same, a slight discrepancy in the name could not negate his claim for juvenility.

His counsel also said that pursuant to the order of the top court, a comprehensive enquiry had been conducted. The applicant, his mother and the head master of the school where the applicant was studying have all been examined.

There has been no cross examination of the said witnesses in the enquiry by the respondent-State. Therefore, there can now be no objection raised by the State to the said report by the Sessions Judge. In the circumstances, he contended that the report may be taken into consideration and relief may be granted to the applicant herein, the counsel said 

Having considered the submission at the Bar, the bench noted that the applicant had undergone sentence of four years and three months in all.

The bench also said that not only the applicant, the mother as well as the Head Master of school had been examined and as many as five documents were also considered by the Sessions Judge. 

"It is on consideration of the same and having regard to Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 that the Sessions Judge found that the applicant was below 18 years of age as on the date of the incident," the bench said.

Consequently, the bench upheld the claim of juvenility made by the applicant and the conviction as recorded against him by the court was set-aside and he stood acquitted. 

As he is on interim bail, his bail-bonds stand cancelled, the bench said.

Case Title: State of Madhya Pradesh Vs Ramji Lal Sharma & Another