ASHOK KUMAR MEHRA & ANR. versus THE STATE OF PUNJAB ETC.

Citation: [2019] 6 S.C.R. 41 · Decided: 15-04-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
41
ASHOK KUMAR MEHRA & ANR.
v.
THE STATE OF PUNJAB ETC.
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 1466-1467 of 2008)
APRIL 15, 2019
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE AND
DINESH MAHESHWARI, JJ.]
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000:
ss. 2(k), 2(I), 7A read with s.20 – Benefit of 2000 Act – Entitlement
to – Conviction and sentence of appellant no. 2 for offences u/s.
302/34 IPC by the High Court reversing the order of acquittal by
Sessions Judge – Plea of juvenility raised before this Court for the
first time by the appellant – On appeal, held: In light of ss. 2(k),
2(I), 7A rw s. 20 as amended in 2006, a juvenile who had not
completed eighteen years on the date of commission of the offence
is entitled to the benefit of the 2000 Act, even though plea of juvenility
raised before this Court for the first time – Appellant no. 2 being a
juvenile is entitled to raise the plea even in this appeal – Thus, the
appellant no.2 was a juvenile on the date of commission of the
offence and though till date he has already undergone considerable
jail sentence partly as an under-trial and partly as a convict, the
order passed by the High Court qua appellant no.2 is set aside.
Dismissing the appeal filed by appellant No.1 and allowing
the appeal filed by appellant No.2, the Court
HELD: 1.1 So far as appeal filed by appellant No.1-father is
concerned, the same stands abated on account of his death.
[Para 7][44-B]
1.2 Appellant No.2 was born on 14.06.1980 whereas the
date of commission of the offence is 04.01.1998. It is, therefore,
an admitted fact that appellant No. 2 was a juvenile (he was below
the age of 18 years, i.e., he was 17 years and 5 months) on the
date of the commission of the offence. Though this fact was neither
brought to the notice of the Sessions Judge and nor the High
Court and was brought to the notice of this Court for the first
time by appellant No. 2 in this appeal, yet in the light of law laid
   [2019] 6 S.C.R. 41
41
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
42
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 6 S.C.R.
down by this in Raju’s case, appellant No. 2 is entitled to raise
this plea even in this appeal. In light of Sections 2(k), 2(I), 7A
read with Section 20 of the 2000 Act as amended in 2006, a
juvenile who had not completed eighteen years on the date of
commission of the offence is entitled to the benefit of the 2000
Act. The claim of juvenility can be raised at any stage before any
Court by an accused, including this Court, even after the
final disposal of a case, in terms of Section 7A of the 2000 Act.
[Paras 8-11][45-E-H; 44-D-G]
1.3 As regards, the issue relating to the genuineness of
the date of birth of appellant No. 2, the appellant No.2 had filed
his date of birth certificate in the Sessions Court; the prosecution
did not object to the correctness of the birth certificate before
the Sessions Judge; this Court granted bail to appellant No. 2 on
this ground observing therein that since he was juvenile at the
time of commission of the offence and was below 18 years, which
was not disputed by the respondent-State; and even at the time
of hearing of this appeal, counsel for the State did not dispute the
date of birth certificate of appellant No.2. In the light of these,
it is not necessary to hold any further inquiry. [Para 12, 13]
[46-A-C]
1.4 Since appellant No.2 was a juvenile on the date of
commission of the offence and though till date he has already
undergone considerable jail sentence partly as an under-trial and
partly as a convict, the impugned order qua appellant no. 2 is set
aside. [Para 14][46-D]
Raju v. The State of Haryana 2019 (4) SCALE 398 –
relied on.
Case Law Reference
2019 (4) SCALE 398
relied on
Para 8, 14
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
Nos. 1466-1467 of 2008.
From the Judgment and Order dated 21.07.2008 of the High
Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal
No. 681-DBA of 2000 and Criminal Revision No. 1242 of 2000.
Yash Pal Dhingra, Adv. for the Appellants.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
43
Ankit Swarup, Ms.Vidisha Swarup, Jawad Tariq, Rohit Kumar
Singh, Ms. Jaspreet Gogia, Ms. Mandakini Singh, Ms. Ashima Mandla,
Advs. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.
1. These appeals are directed against the final judgment and order
dated 21.07.2008 passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at
Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal No.681-DBA of 2000 and Criminal
Revision No.1242 of 2000 whereby the High Court allowed the criminal
appeal filed by respondent No

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.