NAND KLSHORE versus STATE OF M.P.

Citation: [2014] 14 S.C.R. 1489 · Decided: 16-12-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: F.M. IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE · Disposal: Case Allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2014] 14 S.C.R. 1489 
NAND Kl$HORE· 
v. 
STATE OF M.P. 
(Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 63 of 2013) 
DECEMBER16, 2014 
[FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLAAND 
ABHAY.MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 
2000-1?. 7 A-Applicability of- Writ petition by a convict who C 
was convicted u/s. 302 /PC which was confirmed upto 
. Supreme Court- Claiming that he was a jvvenile under 2000 
Act being below .18 years of age on the date of commission 
of offence and hence entitled to benefit under the Act- Held: 
Petitioner was a juvenile on the date of occurrence as D 
appears from the. oral and documentary evidence -
Protection of the 2000 Act can be made available to the 
petitioner though he was convicted prior to ·coming into force 
of the Act and claim as to status as a juvenile made at a · 
subsequent stage. 
E 
Hariram v. State of Rajasthan 2009 (13) SCC 193; 
Ajay Kumar v. State of Madhya Pradesh 2010 (15) 
SC 83; Abuzar Hussain @ Guizar Hossain v. State 
of West Bengal 2012 (10) SCC 489 : 2012 (9) 
SCR 244 ; 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..: relied on. 
Case Law Reference 
2009 (13) sec 193 
2010 (15) SC 83 
2012 (9 ) SCR 244 
1489 
relied on 
Para 5 
relied on 
Para 6 
relied on 
Para 6 
F 
G 
H 
1490 
A 
· SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2014] 14 S.C.R. 
2013 (13) sec 1 
JT 2014 (9) SC 243 
relied on 
relied on 
Para.6 
Para6 
CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition 
(Criminal) No. 63 of 2013. 
B 
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. 
c 
Rishi Malhotra, Adv. for the Petitioner. 
C.D. Singh, Adv. forthe Respondent 
The following Order of the Court was passed : 
ORDER, 
1. This writ petition was filed by the petitioner claiming 
the benefit of the provision under the Juvenile Justice (Care. 
and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (hereinafter called, 'the 
D Act'). The petitioner claimed that he was born on 14th April, 
1980 and that the incident occurred on 18th June, 1997. He, 
therefore, claimed that since he was 17 years 2 months and 4 
days old on the date of commission of offence, though _his 
conviction under Section 302 by the trial Court was affirmed 
E by the High Court as well as by this Court by order dated 7th . 
July, .2011, by virtue of Section 7 A of the Act, he was entitled 
for the benefit of the provisions contained in the Act 
2. On 22"d April, 2013, this Court i~sued notice in this writ 
petition. On 15
1
h July, 2013, while enlarging the petitioner on 
F bail, a Report was called for from the Juvenile Justice Board, 
Dalia, Madhya Pradesh. 
· 3.A perusal of the said Report discloses that the District 
Education Officer and Assistant Teacher of Pandit Nehru 
G Primary School, Kasba-Banmore,. Distri.ct Morena, were 
examined apart from production of original mark sheets of 
Class 2nd, 3rd, 7th, 9th, and 11th standards. Based on the 
analysis of the above oral and documentary evidence, it was 
found thatthe petitioner was really born on 14th April, 1980. It 
H _is, therefore, reported that on the date of occurrence Le. on 
NANO KISHORE v. STATE OF M.P. 
1491 
18
1
h June, 1997 the petitioner was 17 years, 2 months and 4 A 
days old. 
4. In the light of the said fact now reported it is beyond 
doubt that the petitioner was a juvenile as on the date of 
·occurrence. Since, it has now turned out that the petitioner was· 
a juvenile on the date of occurrence his incarceration 
B 
henceforth cannot be continued. 
5. A question arose as to when conviction came to be 
imposed on an accused, prior to the coming into force of the 
Act of 2000, and a claim as to his status as a juvenile at the · c 
subsequent stages as to whether the protection or the benefits 
can be made available to him as a juvenile by virtue of the 
coming into force of the Act of 2000. In the decision reported 
in Hariram v. State of Rajasthan (2009) 13 SCC 193, it was 
ultimately held:-
D 
" ..... a juvenile who had not completed eighteen years 
on the date of commission of the offence was also 
entitled to the benefits of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, 
as if the provisions of Section 2(k) had always been in 
existence even during the operation of the 1986 Act." 
E 
6. The said judgment was subsequently followed in the 
decisions reported in Ajay Kumar v. State of Madhya Pradesh 
(2010) 15 SCC 83, Abuzar Hussain@ Guizar Hossain v. State 
of West Bengal (2012) 10 SCC 489

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