RAJU versus THE STATE OF HARYANA

Citation: [2019] 4 S.C.R. 18 · Decided: 22-02-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N.V. RAMANA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 5 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
18
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 4 S.C.R.
RAJU
v.
THE STATE OF HARYANA
(Criminal Appeal No. 1175 of 2014)
FEBRUARY 22, 2019
[N. V. RAMANA, MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR AND
INDIRA BANERJEE, JJ.]
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act,
2000 – s.7A – Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children)
Rules, 2007 – r.12 – Trial court convicted  three accused persons
for the offence of gang-rape u/s.376(2)(g) of IPC – All the accused
appealed to the High Court – Appellant-accused raised the defence
that he was aged less than 18 years at the time of commission of the
offence – High Court rejected the contention and affirmed the
conviction of the three accused including the appellant – In appeal,
Supreme Court directed the Registrar (Judicial) to conduct inquiry
in respect of the age of the appellant in terms of s.7A of the 2000
Act – Pursuant thereto, report was submitted which determined the
age of the Appellant as 16 years, 2 months & 2 days at the time of
commission of the offence and concluded that he was juvenile at
that time – The State raised the question that whether the plea of
juvenility as decided by the Registry of Supreme Court should be
given precedence over the view of the High Court – Held: High
Court decided the issue merely upon an assessment of the material
on record without resorting to the procedure governing inquiries
for determination of age as laid out in s.7A of the 2000 Act and r.12
of the 2007 Rules – High Court did not conduct inquiry stipulated
as per s.7A & r.12 – In instant case, inquiry was conducted by the
Registrar (Judicial) upon direction of the Supreme Court – As the
inquiry conducted by the Registrar (Judicial) was thereafter
affirmed, so that amounted to an inquiry conducted by the Supreme
Court – Thus, findings of such inquiry would prevail over the view
taken by the High Court – Accordingly, conviction and sentence of
the appellant u/s.376 of  IPC set aside.
[2019] 4 S.C.R. 18
18
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
19
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The High Court evidently did not even frame its
discussion in terms of whether the evidence brought on record
was sufficient to conduct an inquiry under the Juvenile Justice
(Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 and the Juvenile
Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 let alone
order and conduct such an inquiry. On the contrary, it simply
recorded that the evidence did not go to show that the Appellant
was a juvenile at the time of the commission of the offence, and
proceeded to affirm the conviction of the Appellant on merits.
[Para 15][26-E-F]
2.  Therefore, it is evident that the only inquiry as stipulated
under the 2000 Act and the 2007 Rules was conducted by the
Registrar (Judicial) upon the directions of this Court, after the
Court was satisfied upon going through the school certificates
adduced by the Appellant that the certificates in question prima
facie entitled him to claim the conduct of such an inquiry. In such
a situation, the question regarding whether precedence may be
given to the inquiry of a Registrar (Judicial) of this Court over
the opinion of the High Court regarding the age of an accused
can be restated as whether such inquiry conducted by the
Registrar (Judicial) upon the direction of this Court, if thereafter
affirmed by this Court, would amount to an inquiry conducted by
this Court itself. If this be the case, the findings of such inquiry
would prevail over the view taken by the High Court. [Para 16]
[26-F-H; 27-A]
3. This Court is of the opinion that the above question must
be answered in the affirmative. This Court, on previous occasions
as well, has adopted the practice of directing the Registrar
(Judicial) to conduct the inquiry in terms of Rule 12 of the 2007
Rules on behalf of this Court, and accepted the findings made
therein. Seeing that the Registrar (Judicial) is a District Judge
serving on deputation at the Supreme Court, recourse to his or
her assistance in the form of collecting evidence and arriving at a
finding regarding the claim of juvenility of the person concerned
may be undertaken by this Court in order to save its judicial
time. However, it must be stressed that the findings in an inquiry
conducted by the Registrar (Judicial) would not per se prevail
RAJU v. THE STATE OF HARYANA
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
20
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 4 S.C.R.
upon a contrary view taken by the High Court. Only after this
Court applies its judicial mind to such report with due regard 

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