STATE OF MADHYA PRADESHversusRAMJI LAL SHARMA & ANOTHER

                [2024] 10 S.C.R. 411 : 2024 INSC 747

                      State of Madhya Pradesh
                                  v.
                     Ramji Lal Sharma & Another
              (Miscellaneous Application No. 261 of 2024 in
                    Criminal Appeal No. 293 of 2022)
                             23 September 2024
                     [B.V. Nagarathna* and
                Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, JJ.]

                           Issue for Consideration
       Matter pertains to the application filed by applicant seeking his
       release from further jail sentence, on the ground of his juvenility
       on the date of the offence and has already undergone a sentence
       of more than four years.

                                  Headnotes†
       Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act,
       2015 – s.94 – Presumption and determination of age – As
       regards incident of 17.01.2002, the applicant convicted by
       the Special Sessions Judge, however, acquitted by the High
       Court – Subsequently, this Court convicted the applicant –
       Thereafter the applicant underwent sentence of four years
       and three months in all – Subsequently, miscellaneous
       application filed by the applicant seeking his release from
       further jail sentence, on the ground of his juvenility on the
       date of the offence and has already undergone a sentence
       of more than four years:
       Held: Application for claiming juvenility may be made even after
       the judgment and order of conviction and sentence has been
       granted against a person which has attained finality – On basis
       of the report submitted by the Sessions Judge, pursuant to the
       directions of this Court, it is found that the applicant was below
       eighteen years of age as on the date of the incident – Date of
       birth of the applicant has been proved to be 04.10.1984 – Thus,
       the claim of juvenility made by the applicant, upheld – Conviction
       as recorded against him set aside and he is acquitted – As he is
       on interim bail, his bail-bonds stand cancelled. [Para 11]

* Author
412                                                           [2024] 10 S.C.R.

                       Digital Supreme Court Reports


                                Case Law Cited
       Abuzar Hossain v. State of West Bengal [2012] 9 SCR 244 : (2012)
       10 SCC 489; Pramila v. State of Chhattisgarh Criminal Appeal
       No. 64/2012, dated 17.01.2004 – referred to.

                                  List of Acts
       Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015; Penal
       Code, 1860; Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention
       of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

                               List of Keywords
       Release from further jail sentence; Juvenility; Date of birth.

                              Case Arising From
       CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Miscellaneous Application
       No. 261 of 2024
       In
       Criminal Appeal No. 293 of 2022
       From the Judgment and Order dated 09.03.2022 of the Supreme
       Court of India in Crl.A. No. 293 of 2022

                           Appearances for Parties
       Amit Sharma, A.A.G., Yashraj Singh Bundela, Ramesh Thakur,
       Chanakya Baruah, Ms. Saloni, Rohan Singla, Advs. for the Petitioner.
       M/s. Prashant Shukla Law Chambers, Prashant Shukla, Mrs.
       Anushree Shukla, Prabhat Chowdhary, Kartik Kumar, Ms. Ritika Raj,
       Akshat Mudgil, Advs. for the Respondents.

                  Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
                                   Judgment
       Nagarathna, J.
       The Applicant/Respondent No. 2 herein, i.e., Brijnandan @ Brajesh
       Sharma has filed the present Miscellaneous Application in the
       disposed of Criminal Appeal No.293 of 2002. seeking his release
       from further jail sentence, on the ground of his juvenility on the date
       of the offence, i.e., on 17.01.2002.
[2024] 10 S.C.R.                                                       413

       State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ramji Lal Sharma & Another


2.   Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the Respondents in
     Criminal Appeal No.293 of 2022 were two of the four accused in
     the crime registered pursuant to FIR No.8/2002 dated 17.01.2002
     at Police Station AJK Bhind, District Bhinda, Madhya Pradesh, for
     the offences committed under Sections 302, 307 and 34 of the
     Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short “IPC”), read with Section 3(2)(v)
     of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
     Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short “SC/ST Act”). Pursuant to the trial in
     Special Case No. 74 of 2002 before the Ld. Special Judge, Bhind,
     the Respondents were convicted for the offences punishable under
     Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC and were awarded life
     imprisonment and fine of Rs. 5000/- vide judgment dated 24.02.2006.
3.   Being aggrieved by the judgment of the Trial Court, the Respondents
     filed Criminal Appeal No.339 of 2006 before the High Court of Madhya
     Pradesh, Gwalior Bench. The High Court allowed the appeal preferred
     by the Respondents vide judgment dated 13.12.2018 and thereby
     set aside the conviction of the Respondents.
4.   Being aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal passed by the High
     Court, the State preferred this Criminal Appeal No.293 of 2022
     arising out of SLP (Criminal) No.1926 of 2022 before this Court.
     This Court, vide judgment dated 09.03.2022, allowed the appeal filed
     by the State and, resultantly, the Respondents were convicted and
     the sentence imposed by the Trial Court was restored. Hence, the
     Respondents were directed to undergo the remaining sentence as
     per the judgment and order of conviction passed by the Trial Court.
     It is in these circumstances that the applicant/respondent No.2 has
     preferred the instant application seeking his release from further
     jail sentence on the ground that he was a minor on the date of
     commission of the offence i.e. 17.01.2002 and has already undergone
     a sentence of more than four years.
5.   During the course of submissions, learned counsel for the applicant
     Brijnandan alias Brajesh Sharma submitted that although by the
     judgment of this Court the applicant herein was convicted and
     serving his sentence; thereafter, on becoming aware of the law the
     applicant has filed this application claiming juvenility as on the date
     of the incident, i.e. 17.01.2002.
6.   During the course of submissions, it was borne out that while the date
     of birth of the applicant as per the school record is 04.10.1984, it is
414                                                           [2024] 10 S.C.R.

                       Digital Supreme Court Reports


       10.03.1984 as per the Aadhaar Card. We note that the date of the
       commission of offence was on 17.01.2002. It was therefore submit-
       ted at the Bar that the applicant’s plea of juvenility be accepted as
       Applicant was a juvenile aged about 17 years and 3 months on the
       date of the commission of offence.
7.     Considering the aforesaid inconsistency, this Court, vide order dated
       16.05.2024, had directed the Sessions Court, District Bhind, Madhya
       Pradesh to conduct an enquiry with regard to the claim of juvenility
       made by the applicant herein and to submit a report to this Court
       in accordance with law. The said enquiry has been conducted and
       by report dated 16.07.2024, the learned Special Judge (Atrocities),
       Bhind, M.P. has held that the applicant’s date of birth is 04.10.1984
       and consequently on the date of the incident, i.e. on 17.01.2002, he
       was 17 years 3 months and 13 days old (though wrongly typed as
       17.03.2002 and 17 years 5 months and 13 days in the order dated
       16.07.2024). Therefore, the applicant being a juvenile on the date of
       the commission of the offence is entitled to the benefit of the provisions
       of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protocol of Children) Act, 2015 is the
       submission. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that having
       regard to the fact that the learned Sessions Judge has conducted
       a detailed enquiry by examining not only the applicant but also his
       mother and in-charge Head Teacher Government Primary School,
       Deori, Police Station Mehgaon, District Bhind, Madhya Pradesh.
       Finally, it was contended that the said report, which is in favour of
       the applicant herein, may be considered and the benefit of juvenility
       be granted to the applicant herein. Consequently, the conviction as
       against the applicant herein may be set aside.
8.     Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-State at the outset
       submitted that the plea of juvenility is highly belated inasmuch as
       the incident took place on 17.01.2002 but the applicant after being
       convicted by this Court has subsequently filed the application. The
       long delay in making the claim of juvenility must be accounted for
       at the first instance before considering other pleas made by the
       applicant. He also submitted that there is discrepancy in the name
       of the applicant in the special leave petition. The petition notes the
       applicant’s name as Brijnandan alias Brajesh Sharma son of Ramji
       Lal Sharma, whereas in the school documents it is noted as Brijesh
       Kumar and in the Aadhaar Card it is just Brijesh. Therefore, the
       miscellaneous application may be dismissed.
[2024] 10 S.C.R.                                                     415

       State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ramji Lal Sharma & Another


9.   By way of reply, learned counsel for the applicant placed reliance
     on a judgment of this Court in Abuzar Hossain vs. State of West
     Bengal (2012) 10 SCC 489 to contend that the claim for juvenility
     may be made at any stage of the criminal proceedings and even
     after final conviction and sentence being imposed. Therefore, the
     said argument of the learned counsel for the respondent-State is
     without any substance. He further submitted that although the name
     of the applicant as stated by the informant and the prosecution may
     be slightly at variance with the name of the applicant in the school
     records as well as in the enquiry that has been conducted on the
     basis of the documents but the fact remains that the applicant is the
     son of Ramji Lal and there being no dispute about the same, a slight
     discrepency in the name would not negate his claim for juvenility.
     He further submitted that pursuant to the order of this Court a
     comprehensive enquiry has been conducted. The applicant, his
     mother and the head master of the school where the applicant
     was studying have all been examined. There has been no cross
     examination of the said witnesses in the enquiry by the respondent-
     State. Therefore, there can now be no objection raised by the State
     to the said report submitted by the learned Sessions Judge. In the
     circumstances, he contended that the report may be taken into
     consideration and relief may be granted to the applicant herein.
10. We have considered the submissions advanced at the Bar.
11. It is noted that in respect of the incident dated 17.01.2002, the
    applicant was convicted on 24.02.2006 by the Special Sessions
    Judge, Bhind. Thereafter, he was acquitted by the High Court vide
    judgment dated 13.12.2018. Subsequently, in the appeal filed by the
    respondent-State, this Court by judgment dated 09.03.2022, convicted
    the applicant. It is thereafter that the applicant has undergone
    sentence of four years and three months in all. Subsequently, this
    miscellaneous application was filed and this Court vide order dated
    16.05.2024 directed that the enquiry be conducted. Subsequently,
    the learned Sessions Judge has passed his order on 16.07.2024
    and has submitted his report to this Court. Pursuant to the order
    of this Court on 16.05.2024, the applicant has been released on
    interim bail. Therefore, on perusal of this report, we note that not
    only the applicant herein, but the mother as well as the Head
    Master of school have been examined as PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3
416                                                        [2024] 10 S.C.R.

                           Digital Supreme Court Reports


       respectively and as many as five documents were also considered
       by the learned Sessions Judge. It is on consideration of the same
       and having regard to Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and
       Protection of Children) Act, 2015 that the learned Sessions Judge
       found that the applicant was below eighteen years of age as on
       the date of the incident. Although the application has been filed
       subsequent to the conviction ordered by this Court, we have regard
       to the judgment of this Court as noted above and in judgment dated
       17.01.2004 in Criminal Appeal No.64/2012, titled as Pramila vs. State
       of Chhattisgarh, that an application for claiming juvenility may be
       made even after the judgment and order of conviction and sentence
       has been granted against a person which has attained finality.
       Bearing in mind the aforesaid judgments and the report submitted
       by the learned Sessions Judge, pursuant to the directions of this
       Court, we find that the date of birth of the applicant has been proved
       to be 04.10.1984. Consequently, the claim of juvenility made by
       the applicant, who was arrayed as accused no.3 is upheld and the
       conviction as recorded against him by this Court is set-aside and
       he stands acquitted. As he is on interim bail, his bail-bonds stand
       cancelled.
       Consequently, the miscellaneous application is allowed in the
       aforesaid terms.

       Result of the Case: Miscellaneous Application Allowed



       †
           Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain