LexRAHUL KUMAR YADAV versus THE STATE OF BIHAR
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
* Author [2024] 5 S.C.R. 501 : 2024 INSC 359 Rahul Kumar Yadav v. The State of Bihar (Criminal Appeal No. 177 of 2018) 25 April 2024 [B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta,* JJ. ] Issue for Consideration The issue for consideration was challenge to the conviction of the Petitioner under Section 302 and 394 IPC on the ground that the courts below erred in not considering the Petitioner’s plea of juvenility on the date of commission of the alleged offence. Headnotes Criminal Law – Plea of juvenility may be raised before any Court and it shall be recognised at any stage, even after final disposal of the case – Courts should be guided by object and purpose of the Juvenile Justice (JJ) Act and the matter should be considered prima facie on the touchstone of preponderance of probability – Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2015 – s.9(2). Held: The Court held that the claim of juvenility can be raised for the first time even in appeal if not pressed before the trial court, including the Supreme Court – The focus of JJ Act is on the juvenile’s reformation and rehabilitation, and hyper technical approach of the Court should not defeat the beneficent provisions contained in the Act – Reliance placed on Section 9(2) of JJ Act, 2015. [Para 10-13] Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2015 – s.94 – Prima facie case/ initial burden to be discharged by the claimant to satisfy the Court that inquiry into the belated claim of juvenility is necessary – Materials Held: The Court reiterated the guidelines laid down for evaluating the claim of juvenility raised after conviction by the Supreme Court in Abuzar Hossain vs State of West Bengal, (2012) 10 SCC 489 – The Court observed that where the plea of juvenility is raised at a belated stage, medical tests could be resorted to for age determination in absence of the documents enumerated in Section 94 of the JJ Act, 2015. [Para 12-13] 502 [2024] 5 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports Case Law Cited Abuzar Hossain vs State of West Bengal [2012] 9 SCR 244 : (2012) 10 SCC 489; Vinod Katara v. State of Uttar Pradesh [2022] 9 SCR 836 : 2022 SCCOnLine SC 1204 – relied on. List of Acts Penal Code, 1860; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Arms Act, 1959. List of Keywords Plea of juvenility; Juvenile; Date of commission of offence; Stage of raising the plea; Irrelevant; Proper inquiry; Prima facie satisfaction; Documents / evidence; Ossification test. Case Arising From CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 177 of 2018 From the Judgment and Order dated 29.06.2017 in CRLA No. 437 of 2013 and 30.04.2014 in CRLA No.518 of 2013 of the High Court of Judicature at Patna With Criminal Appeal No. 214 of 2018 Appearances for Parties Rauf Rahim, Sr. Adv., Aviral Kashyap, Ashish Jha, Prabhsharan Singh Mohi, Abhijeet Chatterjee, Subodh Kr. Pathak, Ms. Barnali Basak, Shashi Ranjan, Pawan Kumar Sharma, Akash Swami, Dharmendra Kumar Sinha, Advs. for the Appellant. Azmat Hayat Amanullah, Adv. for the Respondent. Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Judgement Mehta, J. Criminal Appeal No. 177 of 2018 1. This appeal is preferred by the appellant-Rahul Kumar Yadav assailing the judgments dated 30th April, 2014 and 29th June, 2017 passed by [2024] 5 S.C.R. 503 Rahul Kumar Yadav v. The State of Bihar the learned Division Bench of Patna High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 518 of 2013. 2. The appellant and the co-accused were tried by the learned first Additional Sessions Judge, Darbhanga(hereinafter being referred to as the ‘trial Court’) in Sessions Trial No. 441 of 2011 for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 394 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860(hereinafter being referred to as ‘IPC’) and Section 27(2) of the Arms Act, 1959. The trial Court, vide judgment dated 9th April, 2013, convicted the appellant and the co-accused for the offences stated above and qua the charge under Section 302 IPC, awarded death sentence to them. 3. The accused assailed the said judgment by filing an appeal before the Patna High Court. A reference under Section 366 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was also made by the trial Court for confirmation of the death sentence. The learned Judges of the Division Bench of the Patna High Court, gave a split opinion vide judgment dated 30th April, 2014 with one of the learned judges opining that the appeal was devoid of merit and other learned judge opining that the appeal deserves to be allowed and the accused wer
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.