Claim Of Juvenility Can Be Raised At Any Stage Even After Final Disposal: Uttarakhand High Court Quashes Life Term In Murder Case, Upholds Conviction
The Court quashed life sentence of a murder convict found to be 17 on date of offence; said the Registrar (Judicial)'s age inquiry is an inquiry by the Court itself under the JJ Act.
The Uttarakhand High Court has reiterated that a claim of juvenility can be raised before any court at any stage, even after final disposal of the case. Examining the provision of Section 7A of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, the Court observed that the claim in the present case was raised at the appellate stage, which the statute permits. The incident took place on October 27, 2013, when the 2000 Act and the 2007 Rules were in force.
It further noted that a juvenile in conflict with law, though convicted along with other accused, cannot be made to undergo the sentences imposed by the trial court. Having found the appellant to be 17 years old on the date of the offence, the Court sustained his conviction under Sections 302 and 201 IPC but quashed the sentences, holding that they cannot be given to a juvenile in conflict with law in view of Section 15 of the JJ Act. It further held that an inquiry conducted by the Registrar (Judicial) at the Court's direction amounts to an inquiry by the Court itself and is conclusive proof of age under the Act.
A Division Bench of Justice Ravindra Maithani and Justice Siddhartha Sah noting the provision of Section 7A of the Act, observed, “A perusal of the above provision makes it clear that the claim of juvenility can be raised before any Court at any stage even after final disposal of the case. In the instant case, it is done at the stage of appeal”.
“In the instant case, the appeal has been preferred by the appellant and others. They have been convicted and sentenced accordingly. Therefore, this Court has no option but to sustain the conviction of the appellant – Rajiv Kashyap under Sections 302 & 201 of the IPC, but all the sentences which have been awarded to him are to be quashed because as such those sentences cannot be given to a juvenile in conflict with law in view of Section 15 of the JJ Act”, the Bench noted.
Siddharth Bankoti, Legal Aid Counsel appeared for the appellant B.N. Molakhi, DAG appeared for the respondent.
“This Court has no doubt that the inquiry conducted by Registrar (Judicial) amounts to an inquiry conducted by this Court and it is conclusive proof of the age of the appellant under the provisions of the JJ Act”, it noted further.
The appellant, Rajiv Kashyap, was convicted by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Haldwani, on September 18, 2019 in Sessions Trial No. 32 of 2014. He was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 10,000 under Section 302 IPC, and to three years' rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 5,000 under Section 201 IPC. The incident took place on October 27, 2013.
During the appeal, on September 28, 2021, the appellant stated that he was 17 at the time of the incident, was illiterate and had no age document. Following Abuzar Hossain alias Gulam Hossain v. State of West Bengal (2012) 10 SCC 489, the Court directed an ossification test by a Medical Board, which on October 25, 2021 assessed his age at 25 years. On June 10, 2026, the Court referred the matter to the Registrar (Judicial) to ascertain his age on the date of the incident. The Registrar reported that he was 17, and the State did not dispute the report.
The Court noted that Section 7A permits a juvenility claim at any stage, even after final disposal. Under Rule 12 of the 2007 Rules, where age is determined by a Medical Board, the benefit of a one-year margin may be given, but none was needed here since the report itself found him to be 17.
The Court also held that an inquiry conducted by the Registrar (Judicial) at its direction is an inquiry by the Court itself and is conclusive proof of age under the Act. Referring to Raju v. State of Haryana (2019) 14 SCC 401 and Pawan Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, 2023 (15) SCC 683, it ruled that a juvenility claim raised for the first time in appeal must be recognised under Section 7A.
Cause Title: Rajiv Kashyap v. State of Uttarakhand, Criminal Jail Appeal No. 72 of 2019
Appearances:
Appellant: Siddharth Bankoti, Legal Aid Counsel.
Respondent: B.N. Molakhi, DAG.