Supreme Court of India
RAHUL KUMAR YADAVversusTHE STATE OF BIHAR
- Citation
- 2024 INSC 359
- Decided
- 25 April 2024
Holding
A claim of juvenility may be raised at any stage, even after final disposal, and the court must order a proper age‑determination inquiry when the claimant furnishes prima facie material, notwithstanding earlier rejections.
Summary
Rahul Kumar Yadav was convicted under Sections 302 and 394 of the IPC and Section 27(2) of the Arms Act, receiving a death sentence which was later commuted to life imprisonment. He claimed that he was a juvenile at the time of the alleged offence (27 July 2011) and filed applications under Section 7‑A of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, which were rejected by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, the trial court, and the High Court. The Supreme Court examined whether a plea of juvenility can be raised for the first time at the appellate stage and whether the lower courts erred in dismissing the plea without a proper inquiry. Relying on Section 9(2) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2015 and precedents such as Abuzar Hossain and Vinod Katara, the Court held that the plea may be entertained at any stage if prima facie material is shown. Consequently, the Court directed the trial court to conduct a thorough age‑determination inquiry, including possible ossification testing, within 12 weeks and listed the matter for further hearing.
Issues considered
- Can a plea of juvenility be raised for the first time at the appellate stage, including before the Supreme Court, under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2015?
- Did the trial court and High Court err in rejecting the plea of juvenility without conducting a proper inquiry as mandated by the JJ Act?
- What standard of proof is required to order an age‑determination inquiry under Section 7‑A/Section 9(2) of the JJ Act?
- May medical tests such as ossification be employed when documentary evidence of age is insufficient?
Legislation cited
- Arms Act, 1959s. 27(2)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 366
- Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 302, s. 394
- Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2000s. 7-A
- Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2015s. 9(2), s. 94
Subjects
Plea of juvenilityJuvenileDate of commission of offenceStage of raising the pleaProper inquiryPrima facie satisfactionDocuments / evidenceOssification test
Judgment
[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]
* Author
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 were entitled to be acquitted
by giving them the benefit of doubt. In view of the difference of opinion
between the learned Judges of the Division Bench, the matter was
referred to the third learned Single Judge of the Patna High Court
who dismissed the appeal vide judgment dated 29th June, 2017 but
commuted the death sentence awarded to the appellant and the
co-accused to life imprisonment.
4. It may be stated here that even before the case was committed,
the appellant herein had moved an application under Section
7-A of the Juvenile Justice(Care and Protection of Children) Act,
2000(hereinafter, being referred to as JJ Act, 2000) before the
learned Chief Judicial Magistrate claiming that he was a juvenile
as on the date of the incident, i.e., 27th July, 2011. In the said
application, reliance was placed by the appellant on his own
horoscope. However, the Chief Judicial Magistrate proceeded to
reject the said application.
5. When the matter was committed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate to
the trial Court, a fresh petition under Section 7-A of the JJ Act, 2000
was filed by the appellant claiming himself to be a juvenile in conflict
with law which was rejected vide order dated 28th November, 2011
504 [2024] 5 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
considering the fact that earlier the Chief Judicial Magistrate had
rejected a similar application preferred by the appellant.
6. While addressing the Court in this appeal, Shri Rauf Rahim, learned
senior counsel representing the appellant, at the outset, submitted that
the plea made on behalf of the appellant in the trial Court claiming
that he was a juvenile on the date of the incident was dismissed in
an absolutely perfunctory manner without holding proper inquiry and
simply on the ground that the same prayer had been turned down
by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate earlier.
7. Even in the appeal before the High Court, a pertinent plea was
raised on behalf of the appellant that he was a juvenile on the date
of the incident and thus, the proceedings undertaken against him in
the trial Court were vitiated. However, the High Court also failed to
advert to the said prayer. He thus urged that an inquiry should be
directed to determine the age of the appellant so as to decide his
plea of juvenility as per law.
8. Per contra, Shri Azmat Hayat Amanullah, learned counsel for the
State opposed the submissions of Shri Rauf Rahim and urged that
the highly belated plea of juvenility raised on behalf of the appellant
should not be entertained by this Court.
9. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions
advanced on behalf of the appellant and have also gone through
the material available on record.
10. Indisputably, during the pendency of the appeal before the Patna High
Court, the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2015(hereinafter
being referred to as the ‘JJ Act 2015’) had come into force which
provides a comprehensive mechanism to consider the prayer of
juvenility raised on behalf of an accused claiming to be a child on
the date of the commission of the offence. The proviso to Section
9(2) of the JJ Act, 2015 clearly enumerates that plea of juvenility may
be raised before any Court and it shall be recognised at any stage,
even after final disposal of the case. The High Court, however, did
not consider and decide the prayer of juvenility raised on behalf of
the appellant.
11. There are catena of decisions of this Court which hold that the plea
of juvenility, even if not taken before the trial Court or the High Court,
can be raised before this Court.
[2024] 5 S.C.R. 505
Rahul Kumar Yadav v. The State of Bihar
12. Guidelines laying down the standards for evaluating the claim of
juvenility raised for the first time before this Court were laid down by
this Court in the case of Abuzar Hossain vs State of West Bengal1
which are reproduced hereinbelow:-
“39. Now, we summarise the position which is as under:
39.1. A claim of juvenility may be raised at any stage even
after the final disposal of the case. It may be raised for the
first time before this Court as well after the final disposal
of the case. The delay in raising the claim of juvenility
cannot be a ground for rejection of such claim. The claim
of juvenility can be raised in appeal even if not pressed
before the trial court and can be raised for the first time
before this Court though not pressed before the trial court
and in the appeal court.
39.2. For making a claim with regard to juvenility after
conviction, the claimant must produce some material which
may prima facie satisfy the court that an inquiry into the
claim of juvenility is necessary. Initial burden has to be
discharged by the person who claims juvenility.
39.3. As to what materials would prima facie satisfy the
court and/or are sufficient for discharging the initial burden
cannot be catalogued nor can it be laid down as to what
weight should be given to a specific piece of evidence
which may be sufficient to raise presumption of juvenility
but the documents referred to in Rules 12(3)(a)(i) to (iii)
shall definitely be sufficient for prima facie satisfaction of
the court about the age of the delinquent necessitating
further enquiry under Rule 12. The statement recorded
under Section 313 of the Code is too tentative and may
not by itself be sufficient ordinarily to justify or reject the
claim of juvenility. The credibility and/or acceptability of
the documents like the school leaving certificate or the
voters’ list, etc. obtained after conviction would depend
on the facts and circumstances of each case and no
1 [2012] 9 SCR 244 : (2012) 10 SCC 489
506 [2024] 5 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
hard-and-fast rule can be prescribed that they must be
prima facie accepted or rejected. In Akbar Sheikh [(2009)
7 SCC 415] and Pawan [(2009) 15 SCC 259] these
documents were not found prima facie credible while in
Jitendra Singh [(2010) 13 SCC 523] the documents viz.
school leaving certificate, marksheet and the medical
report were treated sufficient for directing an inquiry and
verification of the appellant’s age. If such documents
prima facie inspire confidence of the court, the court may
act upon such documents for the purposes of Section
7-A and order an enquiry for determination of the age
of the delinquent.
39.4. An affidavit of the claimant or any of the parents or
a sibling or a relative in support of the claim of juvenility
raised for the first time in appeal or revision or before
this Court during the pendency of the matter or after
disposal of the case shall not be sufficient justifying an
enquiry to determine the age of such person unless the
circumstances of the case are so glaring that satisfy the
judicial conscience of the court to order an enquiry into
determination of the age of the delinquent.
39.5. The court where the plea of juvenility is raised for the
first time should always be guided by the objectives of the
2000 Act and be alive to the position that the beneficent
and salutary provisions contained in the 2000 Act are not
defeated by the hypertechnical approach and the persons
who are entitled to get benefits of the 2000 Act get such
benefits. The courts should not be unnecessarily influenced
by any general impression that in schools the parents/
guardians understate the age of their wards by one or
two years for future benefits or that age determination
by medical examination is not very precise. The matter
should be considered prima facie on the touchstone of
preponderance of probability.
40. The reference is answered in terms of the position
highlighted in paras 39.1. to 39.6. The matters shall now
be listed before the Bench(es) concerned for disposal.”
[2024] 5 S.C.R. 507
Rahul Kumar Yadav v. The State of Bihar
13. In the case of Vinod Katara v. State of Uttar Pradesh2, this Court
directed the concerned Sessions Court to inquire regarding the age
of the accused as per law, even though, he had crossed the age of
50 years and his appeal against conviction was rejected by this Court
taking into consideration the aspect regarding the determination of
plea of juvenility at the belated stage. The relevant extracts from the
said judgment are as follows: -
“51. Ideally, there should not be any dispute as to the age
of a person if the birth is registered in accordance with
law and date of birth is entered in the school records on
the basis of genuine record of birth. However, in India, the
factors like poverty, illiteracy, ignorance, indifference and
inadequacy of the system often lead to there being no
documentary proof of a person’s age. Therefore, in those
cases where the plea of juvenility is raised at a belated
stage, often certain medical tests are resorted to forage
determination in absence of the documents enumerated
in Section 94 of the Act 2015. The rule allowing plea of
juvenility to be raised at a considerably belated stage has
its rationale in the contemporary child rights jurisprudence
which requires the stakeholders to act in the best interest
of the child.
54. Awareness about the rights of the child and correlated
duties remain low among the functionaries of the juvenile
justice system. Once a child is caught in the web of adult
criminal justice system, it is difficult for the child to get out
of it unscathed. The bitter truth is that even the legal aid
programmes are mired in systemic bottlenecks and often
it is only at a considerably belated stage of the proceeding
that the person becomes aware of the rights, including the
right to be differently treated on the ground of juvenility.
55. What needs to be kept in mind is the main object
and purpose of the Juvenile Justice Act. The focus of this
legislation is on the juvenile’s reformation and rehabilitation
so that he also may have an opportunity to enjoy as other
2 [2022] 9 SCR 836 : 2022 SCCOnLine SC 1204
508 [2024] 5 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
children. In Pratap Singh (supra), this Court, elaborating
on the objects and purpose of the Juvenile Justice Act,
made the following observations:—
“…The said Act is not only a beneficent legislation, but
also a remedial one. The Act aims at grant of care,
protection and rehabilitation of a juvenile vis-à-vis the adult
criminals. Having regard to Rule 4 of the United Nations
Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile
Justice, it must also be borne in mind that the moral and
psychological components of criminal responsibility were
also one of the factors in defining a juvenile. The first
objective, therefore, is the promotion of the well-being of
the juvenile and the second objective to bring about the
principle of proportionality whereby and whereunder the
proportionality of the reaction to the circumstances of both
the offender and the offence including the victim should
be safeguarded…”
14. In the present case, the appellant filed an application at the earliest
point of time raising the claim of juvenility based on a horoscope
before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. The said application
was rejected. However, before the trial Court, the birth certificate was
presented and a plea for determination of age was raised. Learned
trial Court rejected the said prayer by observing that even though
the birth certificate was issued in the year 1995, the same was not
presented along with the application filed earlier before the learned
Chief Judicial Magistrate.
15. On going through the record, we find that proper inquiry in accordance
with the provisions of the JJ Act, 2000 or the JJ Act, 2015 was not
carried out so to consider the prayer made by the appellant to be
treated as juvenile on the date of the incident even though the plea
was raised at the earliest opportunity. It can be said without a cavil
of doubt that the plea of juvenility raised by the appellant could not
have been thrown out without conducting proper inquiry.
16. In the wake of the above discussion, we hereby direct that the
learned first Additional Sessions Judge, Darbhanga shall conduct a
thorough inquiry to determine the age/date of birth of the appellant
in accordance with the procedure provided under the JJ Act, 2015
and the rules framed thereunder.
[2024] 5 S.C.R. 509
Rahul Kumar Yadav v. The State of Bihar
17. The Station House Officer of the police station concerned shall provide
full assistance to the learned first Additional Sessions Judge in the
process of collection of documents/evidence so as to facilitate the
inquiry. Proper opportunity to participate in the proceedings shall be
provided to the accused as well as the prosecution.
18. In case the trial Court is unable to reach to a logical conclusion based
on the documents/certificates placed on record during the course
of the inquiry, it may, as a last resort, get conducted the ossification
test of the appellant keeping in view the observations made by this
Court in the case of Vinod Katara(supra).
19. The inquiry shall be completed within 12 weeks from today.
20. A copy of this order shall forthwith be transmitted to the learned
first Additional Sessions Judge, Darbhanga for information and
compliance.
21. Upon conclusion of procedure, the inquiry report shall be forwarded
to this Court and a copy shall also be provided to the accused and
the prosecution.
22. The matter shall be listed for hearing in the third week of August, 2024.
Criminal Appeal No. 214 of 2018
23. List along with Criminal Appeal No. 177 of 2018
Headnotes prepared by: Result of the case:
Niti Richhariya, Hony. Associate Editor Interim direction issued.
(Verified by: Liz Mathew, Sr. Adv.) Matter to be relisted.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Plea of juvenility"Sign in to search