Juvenility Plea Can Be Filed After Conviction: Supreme Court Sets Aside Conviction in Murder Case

By Legal Wires 5 Minutes Read

In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India has determined that a plea of juvenility can be filed even after a judgment and conviction has reached finality. This decision came from a bench comprising Justices BV Nagarathnaand N Kostiswar Singh, who set aside the conviction of an accused in a murder case after accepting his juvenility claim. The court emphasized that such applications can be made under the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection) Act, 2015, even when the conviction has been upheld earlier.

Background of the Case

• The accused in this case was convicted of murder, and his conviction had already attained finality when he filed a plea for juvenility.
• The Supreme Court referred to its earlier judgments, including the decision in Pramila vs. State of Chhattisgarh, Criminal Appeal No.64/2012, dated 17.01.2004, to establish that an application for claiming juvenility can be made even after the order of conviction has been passed and upheld.
• The accused filed a miscellaneous application under the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection) Act, 2015, claiming that he was a juvenile at the time of the incident, which was accepted for consideration by the Supreme Court.

Examination by the Sessions Court

• In the Supreme Court’s direction, a detailed examination was conducted by the Sessions Court under Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection) Act, 2015.
• The Sessions Court examined the age of the accused at the time of the offense and concluded that the accused was indeed under 18 years of age when the incident took place.
• The report confirming the juvenility of the accused was then submitted to the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court’s Observations and Decision

• Justice BV Nagarathna, authoring the judgment, observed that the juvenility claim made by the accused was valid and thus accepted the findings of the Sessions Court.
• The Supreme Court noted that “the adjudication of the matter on 23.12.2022, in the absence of the complete records being reviewed, would render the said order dated 23.12.2022 legally invalid and is liable to be set aside.”
• The bench further remarked, “Bearing in mind the aforesaid judgments and the report submitted by the learned Sessions Judge, we find that the date of birth of the applicant has been proved to be 04.10.1984.”
• As a result, the conviction against the accused, who was identified as accused No.3, was set aside, and he was acquitted of the charges.

Impact of the Ruling

• The Supreme Court’s decision to entertain a juvenility plea after conviction highlights the principle that age-related claims must be considered even at a later stage to ensure justice.
• The Sessions Court’s report played a pivotal role in determining the accused’s age at the time of the offense, leading to the acquittal.
• The accused, who had been on interim bail, now has his bail bonds cancelled following the acquittal.

Legal Representation

• For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Amit Sharma (A.A.G.), Mr. Yashraj Singh Bundela (AOR), Mr. Ramesh Thakur (Advocate), Mr. Chanakya Baruah (Advocate), Ms. Saloni (Advocate), Mr. Rohan Singla (Advocate).
• For the Respondent(s): M/S. Prashant Shukla Law Chambers (AOR), Mr. Prashant Shukla (Advocate), Mrs. Anushree Shukla (Advocate), Mr. Prabhat Chowdhary (Advocate), Mr. Kartik Kumar (Advocate), Ms. Ritika Raj (Advocate), Mr. Akshat Mudgil (Advocate).

Click to read: STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH VERSUS RAMJI LAL SHARMA & ANOTHER

Legal Wires

Team @LegalWires