EERATI LAXMAN versus STATE OF A.P.

Citation: [2009] 1 S.C.R. 509 · Decided: 23-01-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2009) 1 S.C.R. 509 
EERATI LAXMAN 
A 
v. 
STATE OF A.P. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 139 of 2009) 
JANUARY 23, 2009 
B 
[S.B. SINHA AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, JJ.] 
JUVENILE JUSTICE ACT, 1986: 
Murder- Conviction of accused under s.302 /PC - Claim c 
of being juvenile rejected by trial court on the ground that no 
reliance could be placed on the date of his birth recorded in 
the registers of primary school - On revision, High Court 
remanded the matter- Relying on Arnit Das's case* decided 
by Supreme Court, the trial court held that on the date of 
production before Magistrate, accused was not a juvenile -
D 
Appeal dismissed by High Court - On appeal, Held: Arnit 
Das* has been ovemJled by Constitution Bench of Supreme 
Court - Date on which offence committed and not date on 
which accused was produced before court would be relevant 
E 
date to ascertain whether accused is juvenile - Thus accused 
not attained the age of 16 years on the date of occurrence -
Judgment of High Court set aside - Matter remitted to 
Juvenile Justice Board in terms of s.20 of the Act. 
Pratap Singh v. State of Jharkhand (2005) 3 SCC 551; 
F 
Balu @ Bakthvatchalu v. State of Tamil Nadu 2008 (2) 
SCALE 419; Jyoti Prakash Rai@ Jyoti Prakash v. State of 
Bihar 2008 (3) SCALE 348; Ravinder Singh Gorkhi v. State 
of U.P. (2006) 5 SCC 584; Vimal Chadha v. Vikas Choudhary 
& Anr. 2008 (8) SCALE 608; Prabhu Dayal Sesma v. State of G 
"'"?" 
Rajasthan & Anr. (1986) 4 SCC 59; Salag Ram Sharma v. 
State of Rajasthan, (2005) 10 SCC 77 and Achhaibar Maurya 
v. State of Uttar Pradesh & ors. (2008) 2 sec 639, relied on. 
509 
H 
510 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009] 1 S.C.R. 
A 
*Amit Das v. State of Bihar (2000) 5 SCC 488, referred 
to. 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal 
No. 139 of 2009. 
B 
From the Judgment and Order dated 13.10.2006 of the 
High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradeah at Hyderabad in Crl. 
Appeal No. 1279 of 2003. 
Ashesh Lal and Susmita Lal for the Appellant. 
c 
T. Venkatnarayana, and D. Bharathi Reddy for the 
Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
D 
S.B. SINHA, J. 1. Leave granted. 
2. Appellant was convicted for commission of an offence 
punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. He 
was sentenced to. undergo imprisonment for life. Allegations 
E against him were that on or about 9.5.1994 at about 1.00 p.m. 
he committed murder of one Pittala Chandrakala by pouring 
kerosene over her and setting her on fire with a matchstick. 
3. One of the grounds taken by him during trial was ttiat 
he was a juvenile within the meaning of the provisions of 
ll 
F Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 (for short, "the said Acf') on the date 
of commission of offence. Indisputably, the date of birth of the 
appellant is 10.5.1978. The question, however, which arises for 
consideration is as to whether he had completed the age of 
16 years on 9.5.1994. During the trial, it appears, such a 
G contention was rejected by the learned trial judge opining that 
he was not a juvenile as no reliance could be placed on the 
date of his birth recorded in the registers of the primary school. 
A revision application was filed thereagainst before the High 
Court. By reason of a judgment and order dated 26.7.2000, the 
H matter was remanded back to the trial court. Relying on or on 
EERA Tl LAX.MAN v. STATE OF A. P. 
511 
[S.B. SINHA, J.] 
the basis of a decision of this Court in Amit Das v. State of A 
Bihar [(2000) 5 SCC 488], it was held that the date of 
production of the appellant before the learned Magistrate being 
25.5.1994 and assuming that the date of birth of the accused 
was 10.5.1978, he was not a juvenile within the meaning of the 
provisions of the said Act. 
B 
The learned Sessions Judge, held: 
"The learned Advocate feebly contended that the accused 
should be treated as a juvenile on the date of offence as 
per the decision reported in 2000 Supreme Court (Crl) c 
1270, ALT 2002 AP 511 page, ALT 2002 AP 485, sec 
2000 Vol. II page 1270 and AIR 1972, SC 1557. With due 
respect to all the above decisions, I express my inability 
to accept the contention of the learned advocates for the 
accused. As already stated by me earlier the accused in 
D 
this case has preferred Criminal Revision Case No. 418 
of 2000 before the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh 
aggrieved by the earlier order of this Court refusing to 
accept him as a juvenile. In the order dated 26. 7 .2000, the 
Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh has speci

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