23 July 2025 Juvenile Justice >> Miscellaneous  

The Supreme Court of India has set aside the conviction and sentence of an appellant in a rape case, originally handed down in 1993 and upheld by the High Court in 2024, after determining that the appellant was a juvenile at the time of the alleged incident in 1988.

The appellant was convicted under Section 342 (Wrongful Confinement) and Section 376 (Rape) of the Indian Penal Code. The defense argued significant discrepancies in the prosecution's case, including a 20-hour delay in filing the First Information Report (FIR), a hostile witness (the victim's brother) who denied the incident and attributed the case to a boundary dispute, and medical evidence showing no external injuries on the victim, though the hymen was torn without fresh bleeding.

Conversely, the prosecution contended that the victim, an 11-year-old at the time, provided a clear and consistent account of the assault, supported by medical evidence from the potency test of the accused and corroborating physical evidence (victim's ghagra and accused's underpants). The delay in filing the FIR was explained by the victim's age, the time her mother arrived, and the distance to the police station. The prosecution emphasized that the uncorroborated testimony of a prosecutrix, if credible, is sufficient for conviction, citing precedents.

A pivotal aspect of the appeal was the belated plea of juvenility raised by the appellant before the Supreme Court. The appellant asserted a date of birth of September 14, 1972, which would make him 16 years, 2 months, and 3 days old on November 17, 1988, the date of the incident. In response to this, the Supreme Court, through an order dated January 20, 2025, directed the District and Sessions Judge, Kishangarh, Ajmer, Rajasthan, to conduct an inquiry into the appellant's age at the time of the offense, following guidelines established in Abuzar Hossain v. State of West Bengal.

The subsequent inquiry report, based on witness statements and school records including the Class-I admission record dated May 16, 1980, confirmed the appellant's date of birth as September 14, 1972. This definitively established that he was indeed a juvenile (under 18 years of age) when the crime was committed.

The Supreme Court, citing its own consistent rulings in cases like Hari Ram v. State of Rajasthan and Dharambir v. State (NCT of Delhi), reiterated that a plea of juvenility can be raised and must be recognized at any stage of the proceedings, even after the case's conclusion. The determining factor is whether the accused had completed 18 years of age on the date of the offense.

Consequently, the Court held that the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, are applicable to the appellant's case. As a result, the sentence imposed by the Trial Court and upheld by the High Court was set aside. The case has been referred to the Juvenile Justice Board for appropriate orders in light of Sections 15 and 16 of the 2000 Act. The appellant has been directed to appear before the Board on September 15, 2025. The appeal was disposed of on these terms.

Juvenile Justice Act, 1986