While reiterating that the plea of juvenility can be raised before any Court, the Supreme Court has upheld the conviction of a rape accused but set aside the sentence imposed by the Trial Court and upheld by the High Court. The Apex Court has now referred the matter to the Juvenile Justice Board.

The appeal before the Supreme Court was preferred against an order passed in the year 1993, whereby the Appellant-accused stood convicted and sentenced under Section 342 of the IPC (wrongful confinement) for a period of 6 months' rigorous imprisonment and under Section 376 (rape) for rigorous imprisonment of 5 years.

Rejecting the argument of the State that it was not permissible to raise the plea of juvenility for the first time before the Apex Court, the Division Bench of Chief Justice of India B. R. Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih said, “...the same needs to be merely mentioned to be rejected in light of the authoritative judgments passed by this Court starting from Hari Ram v. State of Rajasthan and Another followed by Dharambir v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Another (Supra), where it has been categorically held that the plea of juvenility can be raised before any court and has to be recognized at any stage, even after disposal of the case. It has further been held that such a claim is required to be determined in terms of the provisions contained in the 2000 Act and the Rules framed thereunder, i.e., the 2007 Rules, even if the juvenile has ceased to be so on or before the date of commencement of the 2000 Act, as in the present case.”

AOR Vishwa Pal Singh represented the Appellant while Additional Advocate General Sansriti Pathak represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The appellant had allegedly committed rape upon an 11-year-old girl on November 17,1988. The victim narrated the entire story to her mother, and the complaint was lodged.

Arguments

The appellant had raised arguments with regard to the discrepancies in the prosecution case by asserting that the First Information Report was registered after about 20 hours of the alleged occurrence of the incident. Another submission, which had been put forth for the first time before the Apex Court was that the Appellant-accused was a juvenile at the time of the alleged incident and the proceedings could not sustain.

Reasoning

Considering the factual aspects of the case, the Bench noted that the police station was at a distance of 26 km from the house of the victim and the FIR was lodged after a few hours. As per the Bench, the delay in lodging the FIR had thus been duly explained. The same day, the medical examination of the victim was conducted, and the potency test of the accused-appellant was conducted, which established the appellant’s capability of having sexual intercourse.

On the issue of placing reliance upon the sole testimony of the prosecutrix for conviction, the Bench said, “Thus, the settled legal position is that the statement of the prosecutrix, if worthy of credence, requires no corroboration and can form the sole basis for conviction. Furthermore, in the present case, the prosecution’s case is not founded solely on the testimony of the victim; rather, it is amply supported by the statements of other witnesses and corroborating medical evidence, all of which collectively establish the case of the prosecution.”

The Bench next dealt with the plea of the Appellant that he was a juvenile when the incident had taken place. The Bench noted that based on the statements of the witnesses and the documents produced, including the school records, his date of birth, reflected as September 14, 1972, and the same had been accepted to be correct. The findings with regard to his age at the time of commission of the offence had been returned as 16 years 2 months and 3 days on the date of the commission of the crime. “The Appellant was therefore a juvenile on the date of commission of the crime”, it said.

“The relevant factor, therefore, is that the accused, to be a juvenile, should have not completed 18 years of age on the date of commission of the offense, which entitles him to the benefit of the 2000 Act”, the Bench added.

Thus, holding that the provisions as contained in the 2000 Act would apply, the Bench set aside the sentence imposed upon the accused. “The case is referred to the Board for passing appropriate orders in light of Sections 15 and 16 of the 2000 Act”, it concluded.

Cause Title: Sua v. The State of Rajasthan (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 887)

Appearance

Appellant: AOR Vishwa Pal Singh, Advocates Srikant Singh, Vikas Gothwal, Mukesh Kumar, Akash

Respondent: Additional Advocate General Sansriti Pathak, Advocate Aman Prasad, AOR S. Udaya Kumar Sagar

Click here to read/download Judgment




CJI BR GavaiJustice Augustine George Masih

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.