JITENDRA SINGH @ BABBOO SINGH & ANR. versus STATE OF U.P.

Citation: [2010] 13 S.C.R. 879 · Decided: 19-11-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: MARKANDEY KATJU · Disposal: Hearing Adjourned
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2010] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 879 
JITENDRA SINGH @ BABBOO SINGH & ANR. 
A 
v. 
STATE OF U.P 
(Criminal Appeal No. 763 of 2003) 
NOVEMBER 19, 2010 
[MARKANDEY KAT JU AND T.S. THAKUR, JJ.] 
JUVENILE JUSTICE (CARE AND PROTECTION OF 
CHILDREN) ACT. 2000: 
B 
c 
ss. 2(K) and 7A - Juveni/ity - Plea of - Raised before 
Supreme Court in appeal against conviction u/s 304 B an 
498-A !PC - Petition by one of the appellants, namely, the 
husband of deceased for permission to raise additional 
ground that he was minor within the meaning of s.2(K) on the 
0 
date of commission of the offence - Held: In the facts and 
circumstance of the case, an enquiry for determining the age 
of the appellant on the date of the commission of the offence 
shall have to be directed - The Court has recognized the 
beneficial nature of the provisions enacted by Parliament and 
held that a technical plea based on delay in making the claim 
E 
of juveni/ity would not itself disable the person concerned from 
making such a claim - The burden of making out a prima 
facie case for directing an enquiry has been discharged in the 
instant case in as much as the appellant has filed, along with 
the application a copy of School Leaving Certificate and the 
Marks-sheet which mentions the date of birth of the appellant 
-
The medical examination to which the High Court has 
referred in its order granting bail to the appellant also 
suggests the age of the appellant being 17 years on the date 
F 
of the examination - These documents are sufficient at this 
G 
stage for directing an enquiry and verification of the facts, 
although the said material is yet to be verified and its 
genuineness and credibility determined - Suffice it to say, 
while for the present it is considered to be a case fit for 
879 
H 
880 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 
A 
directing an enquiry, that direction should not be taken as an 
expression of any final opinion as regards the true and correct 
age of the appellant which matter shall have to be 
independently examined on the basis of the relevant material 
-
The appellant is allowed to urge the additional ground 
B 
regarding his juvenility on the date of the commission of the 
offence -
Trial court is directed to hold an enquiry into the 
safd question and submit a report as expeditiously as possible 
- It is made clear that the trial court shall be free to constitute 
a Medical Board comprising at least three experts on the 
C subject for determination of the age of the appellant, based 
on Medical tests and examination - The hearing of the appeal 
shall in the meantime stand adjourned - Penal Code, 1860 
- s. 304-B and 498-A. 
Jayendra and Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1981) 4 
D SCC 149, Gopinath Ghosh v. State of West Bengal (1984) 
SCR 803=1984 (Supp) SCC 228, Bhoop Ram v. State of 
U.P. (1989) 3 SCC 1, Brij Lal v. Prem Chand and Anr. 1989 
(2) SCR 612 =1989 Supp (2) SCC 680, Bhola Bhagat v. 
State of Bihar 1997 (4) Suppl. SCR 711 = (1997) 8 SCC 720 
E and Hari Ram v. State of Rajasthan 2009 (7) SCR 623 =2009 
(13) sec 211 - relied on. 
F 
G 
Pawan v. State of Uttaranchal 2009 (3) SCR 4S8 = (2009) 
15 sec 259 - referred to. 
Case Law Reference: 
(1981) 4 sec 149 
relied on 
para 3 
(1984) SCR 803 
relied on 
para 3 
(1989) 3 sec 1 
relied on 
para 3 
1989 ( 2) SCR 612 
relied on 
para-...3 ' ' 
1997 (4) Suppl. SCR711 relied on 
para 3 
2009 (7) SCR 623 
relied on 
para 3 
JITENDRA SINGH@ BABBOO SINGH & ANR. v. 
881 
STATE OF U.P 
2009 (3) SCR 468 
referred to 
para 4 
CRIMINAL AP PELLA TE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal 
No. 763 of 2003. 
A 
From the Judgment & Order dated 23.05.2003 of the High 
Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow in 
B 
Criminal Appeal No. 464 of 1990. 
Sushi! Kumar Jain, Puneet Jain, Trishna for the Appellants. 
Ratnakar Dash, Sandeep Singh, Anuvrat Sharma for the 
C 
Respondent. 
The Order of the Court was delivered by 
T.S. THAKUR, J. 1. The appellants in this appeal by 
special leave have assailed their conviction for offences 
D 
punishable under Section 304-B and 498-A IPC and sentence 
of imprisonment of seven years under the former and two years 
under the latter provision besides a fine of Rs.100/- each. 
Criminal Misc. Petition No.16974 of 2010 filed by appellant 
Jitendra Singh prays for permission to raise an additional 
E 
ground in support of the appeal to the effect that he was a minor 
within the meaning of Section 2(k) of the Juvenile (Care and 
Protection of
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.