MAHESH JOGI versus THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN

Citation: [2014] 11 S.C.R. 293 · Decided: 16-12-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: F.M. IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

• 
(2014) 11 S.C.R. 293 
MAHESH JOGI 
I(. 
THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN 
(Criminal Appeal No. 2621 of 2014) 
DECEMBER 16, 2014 
[FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA AND 
ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 
2000 - s. 2(k), 15 - Juvenile - Appellant-accused about 17 C 
years and 4 months on the date of the commission of offence-
20. 01. 1985 - Conviction and sentence imposed on the 
appellant, prior to the commencement of the Act of 2000 -
Entitlement for the benefit as a juvenile under the Act of 2000 
- Held: Benefit would only enure to the extent of the sentence o 
imposed on the appellant - Therefore, even while upholding 
the cgnviction it is held that the appellant was a juvenile, as 
regards imposition of sentence on the appellant, the Juvenile 
Justice Board directed to pass appropriate orders u/s. 15 of 
the Act. 
E 
Ajay Kumar v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2010) 15 SCC 
83; Jitendra Singh alias Babboo Singh and another v. State 
of Uttar Pradesh (2013) 11 SCC 193 - relied on. 
Hariram v. State State of Rajasthan (2009) 13 SCC 193; 
F 
Abuzar Hussain @ Guizar Hossain v. State of West Bengal 
2012 (9) SCR 244:(2012) 10 SCC 489,; Yakub Abdul Razak 
Memon v. State of Maharashtra 2013(13) SCC 1; Hakkim v. 
State represented through Deputy Superintendent of Police 
JT (2014) 9 SC 243 - referred to. 
G 
Case Law Reference: 
(2009) 13 sec 193 
Referred to 
Para 5 
293 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
294 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2014] 11 S.C.R. 
2012 (9) SCR 244 
Referred to 
Para 6 
2013(13) sec 1 
Referred to 
Para 6 
JT (2014) 9 SC 243 
Referred to 
Para 6 
(2013) 11 sec 193 
Relied on 
Para 7 
(2010) 1s sec 83 
Relied on 
Para 8, 10 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal 
No. 2621 of 2014. 
From the Judgment & Order dated 02.05.2013 of the High 
Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur Bench Jaipur in S.B. 
Criminal Appeal No. 446 of 1986. 
Mohan Pandey for the Appellant.. 
Shiv Mangal Sharma, AAG, Ankit Shah, Shrey Kapoor, 
Ruchi Kohli for the Respondent. 
The Order of the Court was delivered 
ORDER 
1. In this Special Leave Petition, while ordering notice on 
20th January, 2014, such notice was confined to the question 
as to whether the petitioner was a juvenile at the time of the 
F 
commission of the offence. By our subsequent order dated 2nd 
July, 2014, after hearing learned counsel for the petitioner as 
well as the respondent-State, we directed the Additional 
Sessions Judge, Dausa Camp, Jaipur to hold an inquiry to find 
out as to whether the petitioner was a juvenile on the date of 
G the commission of the offence i.e. 20th January, 1985. The 
learned Sessions Judge was directed to give an opportunity 
to the petitioner to produce all requisite materials in support of 
the claim that he was a juvenile on the date of the occurrence 
and also to call for necessary documents from school authorities 
H for ascertaining the said question. 
• 
• 
MAHESH JOGI v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN 
295 
2. Pursuant to our order, the learned Sessions Judge after A 
holding an inquiry has submitted his Report dated 16th October, 
2014. After detailed reference to the various materials placed 
before him, the learned Additional ~essions Judge, Dausa 
Camp, Jaipur, Rajasthan has submitted as under:-
"/t is, therefore, having determined the age of petitioner/ B 
accused Mahesh Jogi son of Parasram, Caste-Jogi, 
resident of Bagwada, Police Station-Aamer, District-
Jaipur(Raj.) order is passed that in Session Case No. 181 
86(58185) titled State v. Mahesh, the age of petitioner/ 
accused on the date of commission of offence i.e. 
C 
20.01.1985 was about 17 vears 04 months. meaning 
therebv that he had attained the age of 16 years and 
therefore he is not a juvenile delinquent." 
[underlying is ours] 
D 
3. Leave granted. 
4. Having perused the Report of the learned Additional 
Sessions Judge, we find that the appellant was about 17 years 
and 4 months as on the date of the occurrence namely 20th 
January, 1985. The conclusion of the learned Additional 
E 
Sessions Judge that since accused-appellant was above 16 
years of age he was not a juvenile is not correct. This Court 
has held in a number of decisions as to what would be the effect 
of the Juvenile Justice(Care and Protection of Children) Act, 
2000 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 2000']. The age of 
F 
a juvenile has been amended by which the age which was 
prescribed as 16 years to be a juvenile was revised as 18 years 
und

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