NARAYAN CHETANRAM CHAUDHARY versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Citation: [2023] 6 S.C.R. 1055 · Decided: 27-03-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.M. JOSEPH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 15 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1055
NARAYAN CHETANRAM CHAUDHARY
v.
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 157334 of 2018
In
Review Petition (Criminal) Nos. 1139-1140 of 2000
In
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 25-26 of 2000)
MARCH 27, 2023
[K. M. JOSEPH, ANIRUDDHA BOSE AND
HRISHIKESH ROY, JJ.]
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015
– ss. 9, 94 – Juvenility – Determination of – The applicant, along
with two other accomplices had committed murder of five women,
and two children – They were tried for commission of offences u/ss.
302, 342, 397, 449 r/w 120B and 34 of IPC – Trial Court sentenced
the appellant to death – Both the judgment of conviction and order
of sentence were confirmed by the High Court – The Supreme Court
dismissed the appeal preferred by appellant against the said judgment
– The review petition filed by appellant was also dismissed – The
appellant (in detention for more than 28 years) filed present
application under s. 9(2) of the Act of 2015, requesting Supreme
Court to hold that the applicant was a juvenile on the date of
commission of the offence – In 2019 by order, the Supreme Court
referred the matter to the Principle District and Sessions
Judge(Inquiring Judge) to decide the issue of juvenility of the
applicant – The Inquiring Judge gave his report sustaining the
applicant’s claim for juvenility – Held: On examination of various
documents, it was found that the applicant’s original name was
‘Niranaram’ and the applicant discharged his part of onus to
establish that it is he who has been tried and convicted as ‘Narayan’
– Now, considering the course adopted by the Inquiring Judge, s.
9(2) of the 2015 Act does not prescribe following the trial procedure,
as stipulated in the 1973 Code and Evidence Act, 1872 – The
legislature has not mandated any specific procedure to be followed
[2023] 6 S.C.R. 1055
1055
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1056
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 6 S.C.R.
by the Court for conducting inquiry to determine juvenility of the
claimant under the 2015 Act – Therefore, Court can formulate its
own procedure for conducting inquiry on this count – No flaw in
the procedure which has been adopted by the Inquiring Judge in
the instant case – As far as certificate of date of birth is concerned,
the applicant has relied on the certificate issued by the School for
determination of his age – Said certificate was issued by the office
of the headmaster of the School – The principal of the school has
in writing disclosed that the content of the admission register is
maintained in ordinary course of business – In normal course the
said register would satisfy the test specified in S.35 of the 1872 Act,
of being a relevant fact – Hence, the date of birth of the applicant
as reflected in the certificate issued by the School is to be accepted
for determining his age at the time of commission of the offence of
which he has been convicted – Going by that certificate, his age at
the time of commission of offence was 12 years and 6 months –
Thus, he was a child/juvenile on the date of commission of offence
– Order sentencing him to death passed by the Trial Court and
subsequently confirmed by the High Court and by the Supreme Court
invalidated by operation of law.
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015
– s. 9 (2) – Stage of raising juvenility plea – A petition u/s. 9 (2) of
the 2015 Act contemplates statutory remedy, plea for which can be
raised at any stage – On juvenility plea, if a writ petition is dismissed
in limine, such order would not foreclose the option of an accused
(or a convict) to make plea for juvenility under sub-section (2) of
s.9 of the 2015 Act.
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015
– ss. 9(2), 103 – ‘Inquiry’ – As far as the procedure for making an
inquiry by the Court, s. 9(2) does not prescribe scrupulously
following trial procedure, as stipulated in the Code of Criminal
Procedure 1973 and the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – The Court
can formulate its own procedure for conducting inquiry.
Allowing the application, the Court
HELD:1. The State has taken a plea that at the time of
inquiry, sufficient time was not available to them to verify this
fact. There are several documents where Niranaram has been
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1057
shown to be the son of ‘C’. After the Inquiry Report was made in
2019, substantial time has lapsed since this Court heard the
matter. No material was produced by the State to demonstrate
that there was any other Niranaram 

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