{"id":1901,"date":"2024-05-18T13:49:36","date_gmt":"2024-05-18T08:19:36","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/?p=1901"},"modified":"2024-05-18T13:49:36","modified_gmt":"2024-05-18T08:19:36","slug":"supreme-court-holds-that-plea-of-juvenility-can-be-raised-at-any-stage-even-after-disposal-of-case","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/supreme-court-holds-that-plea-of-juvenility-can-be-raised-at-any-stage-even-after-disposal-of-case\/","title":{"rendered":"Supreme court holds that plea of juvenility can be raised at any stage even after disposal of case"},"content":{"rendered":"

RAHUL KUMAR YADAV\u00a0 \u00a0[<\/strong>Appellant(s)]\u00a0 Vs.\u00a0 <\/strong>THE STATE OF BIHAR\u00a0 \u00a0[<\/strong>Respondent(s)]<\/h1>\n

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 177 OF 2018<\/p>\n

(2JB, B.R. GAVAI and SANDEEP MEHTA JJ.)<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Facts:<\/u><\/strong> This appeal is preferred by the appellant-Rahul Kumar Yadav assailing the judgments dated 30th April, 2014 and 29th 1 June, 2017 passed by the learned Division Bench of Patna High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 518 of 2013. The accused assailed the 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.<\/p>\n

Issue:<\/u><\/strong> Whether the present appeal is maintainable or not in the present case?<\/p>\n

Arguments on behalf of counsel for appellant:<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n

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. 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.<\/p>\n

Arguments on behalf of counsel for respondent:<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

Held:<\/u><\/strong> The court allowed the present appeal and held that, \u201cIn 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. 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.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

RAHUL KUMAR YADAV\u00a0 \u00a0[Appellant(s)]\u00a0 Vs.\u00a0 THE STATE OF BIHAR\u00a0 \u00a0[Respondent(s)] CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 177 OF 2018 (2JB, B.R. GAVAI and SANDEEP MEHTA JJ.)   Facts: This appeal is preferred by the appellant-Rahul Kumar Yadav assailing the judgments dated 30th April, 2014 and 29th 1 June, 2017 passed by the learned Division Bench of Patna High […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":1903,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[12],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1901","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-judgement"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1901","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1901"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1901\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1905,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1901\/revisions\/1905"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/1903"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1901"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1901"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1901"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}